An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek

ἘΣ Qasinude eats

Lileary ul

| Wellesley, οἷ > 2 Cullege.

Neesented [πὰ

σὺ Sel

3 Ne 52905

Return on
or before

rv, \
WAP O
\

NOES

eof NAR 2 2

ἘΞ ἰδὲ
5: -
,
a
.
od

8,
is = ας

᾿
τ δ᾽

ῃ
ἀνὰ δι ὦ

᾿

᾿

*

͵
= Th

ν.

a
a

‘
>

a

ἣν“
ξεν
2
i
4
thew."

‘
ν

νὸν

4
“

2»;
ον τὰς
στον ἀπ
i ee
Φ
Ὁ |
ΝΑ
bh
\

a

= «
με Ld

a
5

᾿

μὰ

πο δ
»
oe
rs :
...--

= =.

aL
> (ὦ
-Ψ

ἜΝ TRODUCTION ΚΟ

fmt OLD TESTANENT IN GREEK

BZondon: C. J. CLAY anv SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.

Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET,

Leipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
few Work: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Bombay; E. SEYMOUR HALE.

AW INTRODUCTION. FO

foe OD TRSTAMENT

IN: GREEK

BY

HENRY BARGEAY *SWETE. 909,

HON. LITT.D. DUBLIN
FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY

WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING. |THE. LETTER

OF ARISTEAS EDITED: BY

H. Sr J. THACKERAY M.A

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1900

All rights reserved

s2905
> a , is \ \ , A c ,
ἐξεγερῶ TA TEKNA COY, Σειών, ἐπὶ TA TEKNA τῶν “Ἑλλήνων.

EBERHARDO NESTLE
Pe. ee Ped

Min. Sl OVIS; ALTVS,. DE: BIS. SEVDIIS
OPTIME MERITO
HVIVS OPERIS ADIVTORI HVMANISSIMO

τ: ΘΟ Δ
HT, HHT :
Mee |

OT EMRE: AM TIO. ie

= enh ain 141 Siu He te ost

HIS book is an endeavour to supply a want which
has been felt by many readers of the Greek Old
Testament. The literature of the subject is enormous,
and its chief points have been compendiously treated
in Biblical Dictionaries and similar publications. But
hitherto no manual has placed within the student’s
reach all the information which he requires in the way
of general introduction to the Greek versions.

A first attempt is necessarily beset with uncertain-
ties. Experience only can shew whether the help here
provided is precisely such as the student needs, and
whether the right proportion has been preserved in
dealing with the successive divisions of the subject.
But it is hoped that the present work may at least meet
the immediate wants of those who use The Old Testa-
ment in Greek, and serve as a forerunner to larger and
more adequate treatises upon the same subject.

Such as it is, this volume owes more than I can say
to the kindness of friends, among whom may especially
be mentioned Principal Bebb, of St David’s College,
Lampeter, and Grinfield Lecturer at Oxford; Mr Brooke
and Mr McLean, editors of the Larger Cambridge
Septuagint; Mr Forbes Robinson, and Dr W. E. Barnes.
But my acknowledgements are principally due to Pro-
fessor Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn, who has added

Vili

to the obligations under which he had previously laid
me by reading the whole of this Introduction in proof,
and suggesting many corrections and additions. While
Dr Nestle is not to be held responsible for the final
form in which the book appears, the reader will owe
to him in great measure such freedom from error
or fulness in the minuter details as it may possess.
Mr Thackeray’s work in the Appendix speaks for itself.
Both the prolegomena to Aristeas and the text of the
letter are wholly due to his generous labours, and they
will form a welcome gift to students of the Septuagint
and of Hellenistic Greek.

Free use has been made of all published works
dealing with the various branches of learning which fall
within the range of the subject. While direct quotations
have been acknowledged where they occur, it has not
been thought desirable to load the margin with refer-
ences to all the sources from which information has
been obtained. But the student will generally be able
to discover these for himself from the bibliography which
is appended to almost every chapter.

In dismissing my work I desire to tender my sincere
thanks to the readers and workmen of the Cambridge
University Press, whose unremitting attention ‘has
brought the production of the book to a successful
end.

Η ον

CAMBRIDGE,
Seplember 1, 1900.

CON TEN ES:

Poe δι

Bae FISTORY OF THE GREEK OLD. TESTAMENT

AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION.

CHAPTER. 1,

The Alexandrian Greek Version .

CHAP EER Vit.

Later Greek Versions .

CHAPTER. 111.

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions
of the Septuagint

CHAPTER UM

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint

CHAPTER V.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint

CHAPTER ‘VI.
Printed Texts of the Septuagint

PAGES

I—28

29—538

59—86

87—I21

122---170

I7I—194

Χ Contents.

PAH ote
THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN OLD
TESTAMENT.
PAGES

CHAPTER’ I.

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books . 197—230
CHAPTER: 1h

Books of the Hebrew Canon i : : . 231-264
CHAPTER III.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. . 265—288
CHAPTER “FV.

The Greek of the Septuagint ‘ : : : . 289-—314
CHAPTER... V. ,

The Septuagint as a Version. : : : . 315—341

CHAPTER V1.

Text divisions: S¢ichz, Chapters, Lections, Catenae,&c. 342—366

PAKS It

LITERARY USE, VALUE, AND TEXTUAL CONDITION OF
THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT.

CHAPTER. 4
Literary use of the Septuagint by non-Christian Hel-
lenists . : : ; : ; ; . 369--380
CHAPTER. Ah

Quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament 381—405

Contents.

CHAPTER III.

Quotations from the Septuagint in early Christian
writings .

CHAPTER IV.
The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study .

CHAPTER “¥.

Influence of the Septuagint on Christian Literature .

CHAPTER VI.

Textual condition of the Septuagint, and problems
arising out of it

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.

APPENDIX.

THE LETTER OF PSEUDO-ARISTEAS.

Introduction

Text

INDICES.

i. Index of Biblical references .

ii. Index of Subject-matter

ΧΙ

PAGES

406—432

433-461

462---477

478—497

501—-518
519—574

577—584
585—592

" ie a : Ra Te ig | Ber eee
ee ety |
are ἢ ioe-ths |} lw: ἌΣ βρὲ: ak Ἐπο σε

ὌΝ τυ.
ὃν ἐξ ἀπὼν τὸμ Daren: nto STRAY Se 471 Io Sa
ee >) Pea " ᾿

a | ie τ Ἀγ ΑΒ

' ἀγα ϊθοσα Bas. Aten odd τὸ neti bnie
το wow ΝΣ COR Re | ΠΕ Τὺ: «, 51 ΤΟ ΤΌΝ

RUONUTENAUD, OOK, EROVS RS ΡΝ

α΄

SA ιν.
λα δι ρν αι Real yor Sou era ae

δηλ τὸν .: ; ; : Mieke

aherne)2

PCR Ie ἢν

ΡΟ ΟΡ THE “GREEK OLD: LESTAMENT
AND OF ITS TRANSMISSION.

ΓΤ ΟῚ ΟΣ

Clive ERE

THE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK VERSION.

tr. A Greek version of any portion of the Old Testament
presupposes intercourse between Israel and a Greek-speaking
people. So long as the Hebrew race maintained its isolation,
no occasion arose for the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
into a foreign tongue. As far as regards the countries west of
Palestine, this isolation continued until the age of Alexander’ ;
it is therefore improbable that any Greek version of the Scrip-
tures existed there before that era. Among the Alexandrian
Jews of the second century before Christ there was a vague
belief that Plato and other Greek philosophical writers were
indebted for some of their teaching to a source of this kind’.
Thus Aristobulus (af. Clem. Al. strom. 1. 22; cf. Eus. praep.
ev. Xill. 12) writes: κατηκολούθηκε δὲ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τῇ καθ᾽

1 Individual cases, such as that of the Jew mentioned by Clearchus
ee Jos. c. Ap. τ, 22), who was ‘EAAnuikds οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ Kal TH
ψυχῇ, are exceptions to a general rule. How numerous and prosperous
were the Jewish colonies in Asia Minor at a later period ty ae from the
Acts of the Apostles; see also Ramsay, PArygza 1. 11. p. 667 ff.

2 This belief was inherited by the Christian school of Alexandria; see
Clem. strom. Vv. 29, Orig. c. Cels. iv. 39, vi. 19; and cf. Lact. 2227: Iv. 2.

ᾧ S. S. I

2 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

ἡμᾶς νομοθεσίᾳ, καὶ φανερός ἐστι περιεργασάμενος ἕκαστα τῶν
ἐν αὐτῇ λεγομένων. διηρμήνευται δὲ πρὸ Δημητρίου ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου",
πρὸ τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου καὶ Περσῶν ἐπικρατήσεως, τά τε κατὰ τὴν
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγωγὴν τῶν ᾿Εβραίων τῶν ἡμετέρων πολιτῶν καὶ
ἡ τῶν γεγονότων ἁπάντων αὐτοῖς ἐπιφάνεια καὶ κράτησις τῆς
χώρας καὶ τῆς ὅλης νομοθεσίας ἐπεξήγησις---νγοτ5. which seem
to imply the existence before B.c. 400 of a translation which
included at least the Books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and
Joshua. A similar claim has been found in the statement attri-
buted by Pseudo-Aristeas to Demetrius of Phalerum: τοῦ νόμου
τῶν Ἰουδαίων BuBria...odx ws ὑπάρχει σεσήμανται, καθὼς ὑπὸ τῶν
εἰδότων προσαναφέρεται. But no fragments of these early
translations have been produced, and it is more than probable
that the story arose out of a desire on the part of the
Hellenistic Jews to find a Hebrew origin for the best products
of Greek thought ἃ

2. The earliest and most important of the extant Greek
versions of the Old Testament was an offspring of the ‘Greek
Dispersion’ (ἡ διασπορὰ τῶν “EXAnvwr, Jo. vil. 35), which began
with the conquests of Alexander the Great.

The Hebrew Prophets foresaw that it was the destiny
of their race to be scattered over the face of the world
(Deut. xxviii. 25, xxx. 4, Jer. xv. 4, xxxiv. 17). The word
διασπορά (O.L. dispersio) employed by the Greek translators in
these and similar passages (cf. 2 Esdr. xi. 9, Ps. cxxxviii.
(cxxxix.) tit. (codd. A? T), cxlvi. (cxlvii.) 2, Judith v. 19, Isa.
xlix. 6, Jer. xill. 14 (cod. x*), Dan. xil. 2 (LXx.), 2 Mace. i. 27)
became the technical Greek term for Jewish communities in
foreign lands, whether planted there by forcible deportation, or

1 δι᾿ ἑτέρων, Eus.

2 See Tischendorf, V. 7. Gr. (1879) prolegg. p. xiii. ἢ,

9. Cf. Walton (ed. Wrangham), p. 18; Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 14f.;
Buhl, Kanon u. Text, p. 108 f.

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 3

by their own free agency (Jo. vil. 35, Jas. i. 1, 1 Pet. 1.1)’. Such
settlements were at first compulsory, and limited to countries
east of Palestine. Between the eighth and sixth centuries
B.c. the bulk of the population of both the Northern and
Southern Kingdoms was swept away by Assyrian and Baby-
lonian conquerors (2 Kings xvii. 6, xxiv. 14 ff., xxv. 11 f,
21f.). Apart of the Babylonian captivity returned (Ezra 1. ii.),
but Babylonia and Mesopotamia continued to be the home of
a large body of Jewish settlers (Tob. i. 14 ff, 4 Esdr. xiii. 39 ff,
Philo ad Caz. 36, Acts 11. 9, Joseph. Anz. x1. 5. 2, Xv. 3. I, XVill.
9. 1ff.). This ‘Eastern’ Dispersion need not detain us here.
No Biblical version in the stricter sense” had its origin in
Babylonia; there, as in Palestine, the services of the synagogue
interpreter (1227'N!D) sufficed for the rendering of the lections
into Aramaic, and no desire was manifested on the part of the
Gentile population to make themselves acquainted with the
Hebrew scriptures. It was among the Jews who were brought
into relation with Hellenic culture that the necessity arose for
a written translation of the books of the canon. Egypt was
the earliest home of the Hellenistic Jew, and it was on
Egyptian soil that the earliest Greek version of the Old Testa-
ment was begun.

3. Long before the time of Alexander Egypt possessed the
nucleus of a Jewish colony. Shashanq, the Shishak of 1 K. xiv.
25 f., 2 Chr. xil. 2f., who invaded Palestine® in the tenth
century B.c., may have carried into Egypt captives or hostages
from the conquered cities whose names still appear upon the

1 The later Hebrew term was ἼΩΝ ‘exile’; see Dr Hort on 1 Pet. Ζ. Ἢ.

2 The ‘ Babylonian’ Targum is of Palestinian origin (Buhl, p. 173).
On early Aramaic translations arising out of the synagogue interpretations,
see id., p. 168f. ; and for the traditional account of the origin of the Syriac
O. T. see Nestle, Urtext τι. Ubersetzungen der Bibel (Leipzig, 1897),

5» 229,
3 Authority and Archaeology, p. 87 f.

4 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

walls of the temple at Karnak. Isaiah (xix. 19 f.) foresaw’ that
a time must come when the religious influence of Israel would
make itself felt on the banks of the Nile, while he endeavoured
to check the policy which led Judah to seek refuge from
Assyrian aggression in an Egyptian alliance (xxx. 1 ff.). Jewish
mercenaries are said to have fought in the expedition of
Psammetichus I. against Ethiopia c B.c. 650 (cf. Ps.-Arist.:
ἑτέρων ξυμμαχιῶν ἐξαπεσταλμένων πρὸς τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα
μάχεσθαι σὺν Ψαμμιτιχῷσθ. The panic which followed the
murder of Gedaliah drove a host of Jewish fugitives to Egypt,
where they settled at Migdol (Μάγδωλος), Tahpanhes (Tagvas
= Δάφνη)", Noph (Memphis), and Pathros (Ia@ovpy)*, i.e.
throughout the Delta, and even in Upper Egypt; and the
descendants of those who survived were replenished, if we may
believe Pseudo-Aristeas, by others who entered Egypt during
the Persian period (ἤδη μὲν καὶ πρότερον ἱκανῶν εἰσεληλυθότων
σὺν τῷ Πέρσῃ). These earlier settlers were probably among
the first to benefit by Alexander’s policy, and may have been
partly hellenised before his birth.

4. Alexander’s victory at Issos in B.c. 333 opened the
gate of Syria to the conqueror. In the next year he received
the submission of Tyre and Gaza and, according to Josephus,
was on the point of marching upon Jerusalem when the
statesmanship of the High Priest turned him from his purpose’.
Whether the main features of this story be accepted or not,
it is certain that the subsequent policy of Alexander was
favourable to the Jews. His genius discovered in the Jewish

1 The passage is thought by some scholars to belong to the Ptolemaean
age; see Cheyne, utr. to [saiah, p. 105.

2 Cf. Authority and Archaeology, p. 107.

3 Jer. li.=xliv. 1 ff. ἅπασιν τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτου
κτλ. Many of these refugees, however, were afterwards taken prisoners by
Nebuchadnezzar and transported to Babylon (Joseph. az. x. 9. 7).

4 Ant. xi. 8. 4f. The story is rejected by Ewald and Gratz, and the
details are doubtless unhistorical : cf. _Droysen, 7hzstoire de [ Hellenisme,

i. P+ 300+

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 5

people an instrument well fitted to assist him in carrying out
his purpose of drawing East and West together. Jews served
in his army (Hecataeus ag. Joseph. ¢. Ap. 1. 22 ἔτι γε μὴν ὅτι
καὶ ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνεστρατεύσαντο καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τοῖς
διαδόχοις αὐτοῦ μεμαρτύρηκεν); and such was his sense of their
loyalty and courage that when Alexandria was founded
(B.C. 332), although the design of the conqueror was to erect
a monument to himself which should be essentially Greek’,
he not only assigned a place in his new city to Jewish colonists,
but admitted them to full citizenship.

Joseph. amt. xix. 5. 2 ἐπιγνοὺς ἀνέκαθεν τοὺς ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ
ἸΙουδαίους...ἴσης πολιτείας παρὰ τῶν βασιλέων τετευχότας : c. AP.
ll. 4 οὐ γὰρ ἀπορίᾳ γε τῶν οἰκησόντων τὴν μετὰ σπουδῆς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
κτιζομένην ᾿Αλέξανδρος τῶν ἡμετέρων τινὰς ἐκεῖ συνήθροισεν, ἀλλὰ
πάντας δοκιμάζων ἐπιμελῶς ἀρετῆς καὶ πίστεως τοῦτο τοῖς ἡμετέροις
τὸ γέρας ἔδωκεν. B. J. ii. 18. 7 χρησάμενος προθυμοτάτοις κατὰ
τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ᾿ἸΙουδαίοις ᾿Αλέξανδρος γέρας τῆς συμμαχίας ἔδωκεν τὸ
μετοικεῖν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐξ ἴσου μοίρας πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας.

Mommsen indeed (Provinces, E. T., p. 162 n.) expresses a
doubt whether the grant of citizenship’ was made before the
time of Ptolemy I., but in the absence of any direct evidence to
the contrary the repeated statement of Josephus justifies the
belief that it originated with Alexander’.

5. The premature death of Alexander (B.c. 323) wrecked
his larger scheme, but the Jewish colony at Alexandria con-
tinued to flourish under the Ptolemies, who succeeded to the
government of Egypt.

It may be convenient to place here for reference the names
and dates of the earlier Ptolemies. I. Lagi, or Soter (B.C. 322
—285). 11. Philadelphus (B.c. 285—247). III. Euergetes I.
(B.C. 247—222). IV. Philopator I. (B.c.222—205). V. Epiphanes

1 Plutarch Alex. 26 ἐβούλετο πόλιν μεγάλην Kal πολυάνθρωπον Ἑλληνίδα
συνοικίσας ἐπώνυμον ἑαυτοῦ καταλιπεῖν.

* See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolenties, p. 86.

3 On the relations in which the Jews stood to Alexander and his succes-
sors see Wellhausen, 757. u. 724. Geschichte, c. xvi.

6 9c" The Alexandrian Greek Version.

--- == nn nn ee EE UE EESn SSUES ι΄ οῦὺἷ΄͵͵-ςς

(B.C. 205—182). VI. Eupator (B.c. 182). VII. Philometor
(B.C. 182—146). VIII. Philopator II. (B.c. 146). IX. Euer-
getes II., also known as Physkon (B.c. 146—117). Of the brief
reigns of Eupator and the younger Philopator nothing is known.

The first Ptolemy added considerably to the Jewish
population of Alexandria. His expeditions to Palestine and
capture of Jerusalem placed in his hands a large number of
Jewish and Samaritan captives, and these were conveyed to
Alexandria, where many of them acquired civic rights. The
report of the King’s liberality towards his captives, and of their
prosperity in Egypt, attracted other Palestinians to Alexandria,
and many came thither as voluntary settlers.

Joseph. amt. xii. 1. 1 6 δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους
λαβὼν ἀπό τε τῆς ὀρεινῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας καὶ τῶν περὶ Ἰεροσόλυμα τόπων
καὶ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐν Ταριζείν, κατῴκισεν ἅπαντας εἰς

΄ ’

Αἴγυπτον ἀγαγών: ἐπεγνωκὼς δὲ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰεροσολύμων περὶ
τὴν τῶν ὅρκων φυλακὴν καὶ τὰς πίστεις βεβαιοτάτους ὑπάρχοντας . .
‘ > ΄ ΄ , > > , , , ,
πολλοὺς αὐτῶν τοῖς Μακεδόσιν ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ ποιήσας ἰσοπολίτας"
> > ,ὔ Ν » A cal 2} > / Ὁ] A a
οὐκ ὀλίγοι δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων ᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς THY Αἴγυπτον παρε-
γίγνοντο, τῆς τε ἀρετῆς τῶν τόπων αὐτοὺς καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πτολεμαίου
φιλοτιμίας προκαλουμένης.

A separate quarter of the city was assigned to the colony
(Strabo af. Joseph. ant. xiv. 7. 2 τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας πόλεως
ἀφώρισται μέγα μέρος τῷ ἔθνει TovTw'); it lay in the north-east
of Alexandria, along the shore, near the royal palace*. Here
the Jews lived under their own ethnarch*, who exercised judi-
cial authority in all cases between Jew and Jew. They were
permitted to follow their own religion and observe their national
customs without molestation. Synagogues sprang up not only in
the Jewish quarter, but at a later time in every part of the city

1 In Philo’s time the Jews occupied two districts out of five (772
Flacc. 8).

2 Droysen, iii. p. 59.

3 Strabo, ap. Jos. ant. xiv. 7. 2; cf. Schiirer Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes*, ili. 40;
Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 218; Droysen, iii. p. 4o n. On the ἀλαβάρχης
dpaSdpxns) who is sometimes identified with the ethnarch see Schiirer iii. 88.

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 7

(Philo ad Caz. 20, in Flacc.6'). In the time of Philometor the
Jews stood so high in the royal favour that they were suffered
to convert a disused Egyptian temple at Leontopolis into
a replica of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the Jewish rite was
celebrated there until after the fall of the Holy City, when the
Romans put a stop to it (Joseph. azz. xii. g. 7, xlil. 3. 1, B. 7.
vil. το. 4). Under these circumstances it is not surprising
that shortly after the Christian era the Jewish colony in Egypt
exceeded a million, constituting an eighth part of the popu-
lation (Philo zz Flacc. 6, Joseph. « Ag. 11. 4). In the Fayim
villages were founded by Jews, and they lived on equal terms
with the Greeks*. Nor were the Jewish settlers on the African
coast limited to the Delta or to Egypt. A daughter colony
was planted in Cyrenaica by the first Ptolemy, and at Cyrene
as at Alexandria the Jews formed an important section of the
community. The Jew of Cyrene meets us already in the days
of the Maccabees (1 Macc. xv. 23, 2 Macc. il. 23), and he was
a familiar figure at Jerusalem in the Apostolic age (Mt. xxvii.
32, Acts il. 10, vi. 9*, Xl. 20, xill. 1; cf. Strabo af. Joseph. az.
KV. 7-2).

6. The Jews of the Dispersion everywhere retained their
religion and their loyalty to national institutions. In each of
these settlements among Gentile peoples the Holy City
possessed a daughter, whose attachment to her was not less
strong than that of her children at home. ‘“‘ Jerusalem,” in
the words of Agrippa®, “was the mother city, not of a single
country, but of most of the countries of the world, through the

1 On the magnificence of the principal synagogue see Edersheim,
History of the Jewish Nation (ed. White), p. 67.

2 A temporary check seems to have been sustained by the Alexandrian
Jews under Philopator ; see 3 Macc. ii. 31, and cf. Mahaffy, p. 270.

3 See Mahaffy, Empire, &c., p. 86n.; cf. Philo de seft. 6.

4 Where Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 69 f.) proposes to read
Λιβυστίνων for Λιβερτίνων.

5 Philo ad Caz. 36.

ὃ The Alexandrian Greek Version.

colonies which she sent forth at various times.” No colony
was more dutiful than the Alexandrian. The possession of a
local sanctuary at Leontopolis did not weaken its devotion to
the temple at Jerusalem’; pilgrimages were still made to
Jerusalem at the great festivals (Philo af. Eus. praep. ev. vill.
14. 64; cf. Acts ii. 10); the Temple tribute was collected in
Egypt with no less punctuality than in Palestine (Philo de
monarch. ii. 3). But it was impossible for Jews who for
generations spent their lives and carried on their business in
Greek towns to retain their Semitic speech. In Palestine
after the Return, Aramaic gradually took the place of Hebrew
in ordinary intercourse, and after the time of Alexander Greek
became to some extent a rival of Aramaic. In Alexandria a
knowledge of Greek was not a mere luxury but a necesssity
of common life*. If it was not required by the State as a
condition of citizenship*, yet self-interest compelled the in-
habitants of a Greek capital to acquire the language of the
markets and the Court. A generation or two may have
sufficed to accustom the Alexandrian Jews to the use of the
Greek tongue. The Jewish settlers in Lower Egypt who were
there at the coming of Alexander had probably gained some
knowledge of Greek before the founding of his new city*;
and the children of Alexander’s mercenaries, as well as many
of the immigrants from Palestine in the days of Soter, may
well have been practically bilingual. Every year of residence
in Alexandria would increase their familiarity with Greek and
weaken their hold upon the sacred tongue® Any prejudice
See Schiirer®, ili. 97 ff.

Droysen, iii. p. 35.

3 Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 163f. On the whole question see Hody,
de Bibl. textibus, p. 224 f.; Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols,
iii. p. 268 ff.; Deissmann, Bide/studien, p. 61 ff.; Kennedy, Sources of
ἘΣ ΠΡΟ ἋΣ Ti

4 There was a large Greek settlement on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile

at an early period ; see Herod. ii. 163.
5 Cf. Streane, Double Text of Feremiah, p. τι f.

1
2

Lhe Alexandrian Greek Version. 9

which might have existed against the use of a foreign language
would speedily disappear under a rule which secured full
liberty in worship and faith. The adoption of the Greek
tongue was a tribute gladly paid by the Alexandrian Jews to
the great Gentile community which sheltered and cherished
them. ,

But the Greek which the Jews of Alexandria learnt to
speak was neither the literary language employed by the
scholars of the Museum, nor the artificial imitation of it
affected by Hellenistic writers of the second and first centuries
B.C.’ It was based on the 2αζοῖς of the Alexandrian streets
and markets—a mixture, as we may suppose, of the ancient
spoken tongue of Hellas with elements gathered from Mace-
donia, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Libya. Into this hybrid speech
the Jewish colony would infuse, when it became their usual
organ of communication, a strong colouring of Semitic thought,
and not a few reminiscences of Hebrew or Aramaic lexico-
graphy and grammar. Such at any rate is the monument of
Jewish-Egyptian Greek which survives in the earlier books of
the so-called Septuagint.

7. The ‘Septuagint®,” or the Greek version of the Old
Testament which was on the whole the work of Alexandrian
Jews, is, written in full, the Luzerpretatio septuaginta virorum or
sentorum, 1.6. the translation of which the first instalment was
attributed by Alexandrian tradition to seventy or seventy-two
Jewish elders. In the most ancient Greek MSS. of the Old

1 Cf. Thiersch de Pent. vers. Alex., Ὁ. 65 ff.; Mahaffy, Greek life and
thought?, p. 196f.; Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 18 ff. The
remarks of Hatch (Zssays, p. τὸ ff.) are less satisfactory.

2 Trenaeus (111. 21. 3) speaks of the senzorum interpretatio; Tertullian
(Afol. 18) of the septuaginta et duo interpretes; Jerome, of the ZLXX.
interpretes, or translatores (praeff. in Esdr., Isat.), LX X. editio (praef. in
Job, ep. ad Pammach.), editio LXX. (praef. in Paralipp.). Augustine
(cited by Nestle, Urtext, p. 62) remarks: ‘‘interpretatio ista ut Septwaginta
vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo.”

ΙΟ The Alexandrian Greek Version.

Testament it is described as the version ‘according to the
LXX.’ (κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα, παρὰ ἑβδομήκοντα, O. T. in Greek,
i. p. 103, ili. p. 479), and quoted by the formula οἱ ο΄ or οἱ of.
All forms of the name point back to a common source, the
story of the origin of the version which is told in the
pseudonymous letter entitled ᾿Αριστέας Φιλοκράτει.

LITERATURE. The text of the letter of Aristeas is printed
in the Appendix to this volume. It will be found also in Hody
de Bibl. text. orig. (Oxon. 1705), and in Constantinus Oeconomus
περὶ τῶν o ἑρμηνευτῶν βιβλία 6’ (Athens, 1849) ; the best edition
hitherto available is that of M. Schmidt in Merx, Archiv αὶ
wessensch. Erforschung d. A. T.i. p. 241 ff.; a new edition is
promised under the title: Azzsteae ad Philocratem epistula cum
ceteris de origine verstonis LX X. interpretum testimonis. Ex
Ludovict Mendelssohniit schedis ed. Paulus Wendland. For the
earlier editions see Fabricius-Harles, iii. 660 ff.; the edztio prin-
ceps of the Greek text was published at Basle in 1561.

The controversies raised by the letter may be studied in
Hody or in Fabricius-Harles ; cf. Rosenmiiller, Handbuch f. d.
Literatur d. bibl. Krittk u. Exegese; Dahne, gesch. Darstellung
a. jiudisch. Alex. Religions-Philosophie, ii. p. 205 ff.; Papageor-
gius, Uber den Aristeasbrief; Lumbroso, Recherches sur [éco-
nomie politique de Egypte, p. 351 f. and in Atti di R. Accademia
della Scienza di Torino, iv.(1868—g). Fuller lists will be found
in Schiirer’, iii. 472 f. (and in Nestle s.v. Avisteas, in Reat-
encyklopadie f. p. Th. τι. K.3), and Van Ess, Epilegg. p. 29 f.

8. The writer professes to be a courtier in the service of
Philadelphus, a Greek who is interested in the antiquities
of the Jewish people’. Addressing his brother Philocrates, he
relates the issue of a journey which he had recently made
to Jerusalem. It appears that Demetrius Phalereus’, who is

1 From the mention of Cyprus as ‘the island’ (§ 3) it has been inferred
that Aristeas was a Cypriot. The name occurs freely in inscriptions from
the islands of the Aegean and the coast of Caria (C. 7. G. 2262, 2266, 2349,
2399, 2404, 2655, 2693, 2694, 2723, 2727, 2781, 2892), and was borne by
a Cyprian sculptor (see D. G. and R. B., i. 293). The Aristeas who wrote
περὶ Lovdaiwy (Euseb. praep. ev. ix. 25) was doubtless an Alexandrian Jew
who, as a Hellenist, assumed a Greek name.

2 See Ostermann, de Demetrii Ph. vita (1857); Susemihl, Gesch. αἰ. gr.
Litt. in d. Alexandrinerzett, i. Ὁ. 135 ff. On the royal library at Alexandria

The Alexandrian Greek Version. II

described as librarian of the royal library at Alexandria, had in
conversation with the King represented the importance of
procuring for the library a translation of the Jewish laws (7a
τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμιμα μεταγραφῆς agi καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ βιβλιο-
θήκης εἶναι). Philadelphus fell in with the suggestion, and
despatched an embassy to Jerusalem with a letter to the
High Priest Eleazar, in which the latter was desired to send to
Alexandria six elders learned in the law from each of the
tribes of Israel to execute the work of translation. In due
course the seventy-two elders, whose names are given, arrived
in Egypt, bringing with them a copy of the Hebrew Law
written in letters of gold on a roll composed of skins (σὺν... «ταῖς
διαφόροις διφθέραις ev ais ἡ νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ
τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαικοῖς γράμμασι). Α banquet followed, at which the
King tested the attainments of the Jewish elders with hard
questions. Three days afterwards the work of translation
began. The translators were conducted by Demetrius along
the Heptastadion’ to the island of Pharos, where a building
conveniently furnished and remote from the distractions of the
city was provided for their use. Here Demetrius, in the words
of Aristeas, ‘exhorted them to accomplish the work of transla-
tion, since they were well supplied with all that they could want.
So they set to work, comparing their several results and making
them agree; and whatever they agreed upon was suitably
copied under the direction of Demetrius....In this way the
transcription was completed in seventy-two days, as if that
period had been pre-arranged.’

The completed work was read by Demetrius to the Jewish
community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that
a copy might be placed in the hands of their leaders; and

see Susemihl, i. p. 335 ff., and the art. Bzdliotheken in Pauly-Wissowa,
Real-Encyclopadie, v. 409 f.

1 The mole which connected the Pharos with the city: see art.
Alexandria in Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geography, pp. 96 f.

12 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

a curse was solemnly pronounced upon any who should
presume to add to the version or to take from it. After this
the Greek Pentateuch was read to the King, who expressed
delight and surprise, greeted the book with a gesture of rever- ἢ
ence (προσκυνήσας), and desired that it should be preserved
with scrupulous care (ἐκέλευσε μεγάλην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν
βιβλίων καὶ συντηρεῖν ἁγνῶς).

9. The story of Aristeas is repeated more or less fully
by the Alexandrian writers Aristobulus and Philo, and by
Josephus.

Aristobulus ap. Eus. praep. ev. xiii. 12.2: ἡ δὲ ὅλη ἑρμηνεία
τῶν διὰ Tov νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου
βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ προγόνου [he is addressing Philometor] προσενεγ-
καμένου μείζονα φιλοτιμίαν, Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως πραγματευ-
σαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων!. Philo, vz. Moys. ii. 5 ff.: Πτολεμαῖος ὁ
Φιλάδελφος ἐπικληθεὶς... ζῆλον καὶ πόθον λαβὼν τῆς νομοθεσίας ἡμῶν
εἰς Ἑλλάδα γλῶτταν τὴν Χαλδαικὴν μεθαρμόζεσθαι διενοεῖτο, καὶ
πρέσβεις εὐθὺς ἐξέπεμπε πρὸς τὸν τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἀρχιερέα.. 6 δέ, ὡς
εἰκός, ἡσθεὶς καὶ νομίσας οὐκ ἄνευ θείας ἐπιφροσύνης περὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον
ἔργον ἐσπουδακέναι τὸν βασιλέα... ἀσμένως ἀποστέλλει... καθίσαντες
δ᾽ ἐν ἀποκρύφῳ καὶ μηδενὸς παρόντος... καθάπερ ἐνθουσιῶντες ἐπρο-
φήτευον, οὐκ ἄλλα ἄλλοι, τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ πάντες ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα
ὥσπερ ὑποβολέως ἑκάστοις ἀοράτως ἐνηχοῦντος κτλ. Josephus,
ant. i. prooem. 3: Πτολεμαίων μὲν ὁ δεύτερος μάλιστα δὴ βασιλεὺς
περὶ παιδείαν καὶ βιβλίων συναγωγὴν σπουδάσας ἐξαιρέτως ἐφιλοτι-
μήθη τὸν ἡμέτερον νόμον καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν διάταξιν τῆς πολιτείας
εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα φωνὴν μεταλαβεῖν κτλ. In ant. xil. 2. I—I5
Josephus gives a full account obviously based on Aristeas (whom
he calls ᾿Αρισταῖος), and to a great extent verbally identical with
the letter.

The testimony of Josephus establishes only the fact that
the letter of Aristeas was current in Palestine during the first
century A.D. Philo, on the other hand, represents an Alex-
andrian tradition which was perhaps originally independent of
the letter, and is certainly not entirely consistent with it. He

1 In defence of the genuineness of this testimony see Schiirer, G. 7. V.*
iii. 384—392. On the other hand cf. L. Cohn in Meue Jahrbiicher f. d.

Klass. Alterthum i. 8 (1895), and Wendland in Ayzantinische Zeitschrift
vii. (1898), 447—449. For Aristobulus see Susemihl, p. 630 f.

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 13

states (Δ 4) that the completion of the work of the Lxx. was
celebrated at Alexandria down to his own time by a yearly
festival at the Pharos (μέχρι νῦν ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος ἑορτὴ καὶ πανήγυρις
ἄγεται κατὰ τὴν Φάρον νῆσον, εἰς ἣν οὐκ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ
παμπληθεῖς ἕτεροι διαπλέουσι, τό τε χωρίον σεμνύνοντες ἐν ᾧ πρῶτον
τὸ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐξέλαμψε κτλ.). A popular anniversary of this
kind can scarcely have grown out of a literary work so artificial
and so wanting in the elements which ensure popularity as the
letter of Aristeas. The fragment of Aristobulus carries us
much further back than the witness of Philo and Josephus.
It was addressed to a Ptolemy who was a descendant of Phila-
delphus, and who is identified both by Eusebius (4) and by
Clement’ (strom. 1. 22) with Philometor. Whether Aristobulus
derived his information from Aristeas is uncertain, but his
words, if we admit their genuineness, establish the fact that the
main features of the story were believed by the literary Jews of
Alexandria, and even at the Court, more than a century and a
half before the Christian era and within a century of the date
assigned by Aristeas to the translation of the Law.

to. From the second century a.D. the letter of Aristeas is
quoted or its contents are summarised by the fathers of the
Church, who in general receive the story without suspicion, and
add certain fresh particulars.

Cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, dial. 68, 71, ‘cohort. ad Graecos’ 13 ff. ;
Iren. ii, 21. 2 f.; Clem. Alex. s#vom. i. 22, 148 f.; Tertullian,
apol. 18; Anatolius af. Eus. 27. £. vi. 32; Eusebius, 2γαεῤ. ev.
Viil. I—9, ix. 38 ; Cyril of poeta, catech. wv. 34; Hilary, prod.
ad Psalmos, tract. tn Pss. i1., cxvili.; Epiphanius, de mens. et pond.
ὡς 3,6; Philastrius de haer. 1 38% ‘Jerome, praef. in Gen., praef.
zn libr. “guaest. eSNG eee Augustine, de civ. Det xvii. 42 f., de ae
EArt. 22 ; Theodore of Mopsuestia zz Habakk. ii., in Zeph. 1.
Chrysostom, o7. 1. adv. Fud., c. 6, hom. iv. in Gen., c. 4; Theo.

1 Clement of Alexandria identifies this Aristobulus with the person
named in 2 Macc. i. το ᾿ἀριστοβούλῳ διδασκάλῳ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ βασιλέως.
See Valckenaer diatribe de Aristobulo (printed at the end of Gaisford’s
edition of Eus. fraep. ev. iv.).

[4 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

doret, praef. in Psalmos,; Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Fulian. or.
1; Pseudo-Athanasius, syxops. scr. sacr. ὃ 77; the anonymous
dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Conybeare, Oxford, 1898,

p. go f.).

Most of these Christian writers, in distinct contradiction
to the statement of Aristeas, represent the Seventy as having
worked separately, adding that when the results were com-
pared at the end of the task they were found to be identical
(so Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Augustine, &c.). The author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos'
declares that at Alexandria he had been shewn the vestiges of
the cells in which the translators had worked (αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ ᾿Αλεξ-
ανδρείᾳ γενόμενοι kal τὰ ἴχνη TOV οἰκίσκων ἐν TH Φάρῳ ἑωρακότες
ἔτι σωζόμενα, καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐκεῖ ὡς τὰ πάτρια παρειληφότων ἀκηκο-
ὅτες ταῦτα ἀπαγγέλλομεν). This story of the cells therefore
was probably of Alexandrian origin, and had grown out of
the local belief in the inspiration of the Seventy which appears
already in the words of Philo quoted above*. The Fathers
generally accept both the belief and the legend which it
generated, though the latter sometimes undergoes slight modi-
fication, as when Epiphanius groups the Lxxll. in pairs (ζύγη
ζύγη κατ᾽ οἰκίσκον). Jerome is an honourable exception; he
realises that the tale of the cells is inconsistent with the earlier
tradition (2701. in Gen. “nescio quis primus auctor Lxx cel-
lulas Alexandriae mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi eadem
scriptitarint, quum Aristeas...et Josephus nihil tale retulerint”),
and rightly protests against the doctrine which was at the root of
the absurdity (‘‘aliud est enim vatem, aliud est esse inter-
pretem”)*.

1 On the date of this treatise, which is commonly ascribed to Justin,
see Kriiger, Hist. of Chr. Literature (E. T.), p. 112f., and cf. Harnack-
Preuschen, p. 107.

; 2 Cf. 2b. οὐχ ἑρμηνεῖς ἐκείνους ἀλλ᾽ ἱεροφάντας καὶ προφήτας προσαγο-
ρεύοντες.

3 The story of the cells is not peculiar to Christian writers; it is

echoed by the Talmud (Bab. Talm. Aegil/ah 98, Jerus. Talm. Jeg. c. 1.5
cf. Sopherim, c. i.).

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 15

11. Doubts as to the genuineness of the Aristeas-letter
were first expressed by Ludovicus de Vives in his commentary
on Aug. de civ. Det, xviii. 4 (published in 1522), and after him
by Joseph Scaliger. Ussher and Voss defended the letter, but
its claim to be the work of a contemporary of Philadelphus
was finally demolished by Humphry Hody, Regius Professor of
Greek at Oxford (1698—1706)!. A few later writers have
pleaded in its favour (e.g. Grinfield Apology for the LXX., and
Constantinus Oeconomus, of. cit.); but the great majority of
modern scholars, and perhaps all living experts, recognise the
unhistorical character of much of the story of Aristeas.

Indeed it scarcely needed the massive learning of Hody to
convict the letter of Aristeas of being pseudonymous, and to a
large extent legendary. The selection of the elders from all
the tribes of Israel awakens suspicions; their names are clearly
imaginary; the recurrence of the number seventy-two seems
to have struck even the writer as open to remark’; the letters
of Philadelphus and Eleazar are of the same stamp as the con-
fessedly fictitious correspondence between Philadelphus and
the Palestinian Jews in 2 and 3 Maccabees. Above all,
whereas the letter professes to have been written by a Greek
and a pagan, its purpose proclaims it to be the work of a Jew;
while it addresses itself to Gentile readers, its obvious aim is
to glorify the Jewish race, and to diffuse information about
their sacred books. On the other hand, though the story as
‘Aristeas’ tells it is doubtless a romance, it must not be hastily
inferred that it has no historical basis. That the writer was
a Jew who lived in Egypt under the Ptolemies seems to be

1 In his Contra historiam LX Δ΄. interpretum Aristeae nomine inscrip-
tam dissertatio, originally published in 1684, and afterwards included in
De Libliorum textibus originalibus, verstonibus Graecis, et Latina vulgata
libri wv. (Oxon. 1705). For other writers on both sides cf. Buhl, p. 117
ΝΕ ἾΣ p- τὰ 5).

2 On the Rabbinical partiality for this number, cf. Ewald, Hist. of Ζεγαεί,
ποτὶ τὲ ΤῊ: Schiirer it. 1. p.'1743. Buhl, .p, τα (=116, E. T.).

16 ‘The Alexandrian Greek Version.

demonstrated by the knowledge which he displays of life
at the Alexandrian Court’. There is also reason to suppose
that he wrote within fifty years of the death of Philadelphus,
and his principal facts are endorsed, as we have seen, by a
writer of the next generation’. It is difficult to believe that
a document, which within a century of the events relates
the history of a literary undertaking in which the Court and
the scholars of Alexandria were concerned, can be altogether
destitute of truth. Detailed criticism is impossible in this
place, but it is necessary to examine the credibility of the
chief features of the romance so far as they affect questions
relating to the date and origin of the Lxx. There are certain
points in the letter of Aristeas which demand investigation,
especially the statements (1) that the translation of the Law
was made in the time of Philadelphus; (2) that it was under-
taken at the desire of the King, and for the royal library;
(3) that the translators and the Hebrew rolls which they used
were brought from Jerusalem; and (4) that their translation
when completed was welcomed both by Jews and Greeks.

12. There is no improbability in the first of these state-
ments. The personal tastes of Philadelphus, if by no means
purely literary, included a fancy for the society of scholars and
the accumulation of books*. He founded a second library at
the Serapeion to receive the overflow of that which Soter had
established near the Museum and the Palace*. His syncre-
tistic temperament disposed him to listen to the representatives
of various creeds. A Buddhist mission from the Ganges found
a welcome at his court’; and the reign which produced

1 See the remarks of Wilcken in PAzlologus 1111. (1894), p. 111 f., and cf.
Lumbroso, p. xiii.

2 See Schiirer’, iii. p. 468 f.

3 Tertullian exaggerates his literary merits (apo/. 18 Ptolemaeorum eru-
ditissimus...et omnis litteraturae sagacissimus).

4 Cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 164 ff. On the character of

Philadelphus see also Droysen, ili., p. 254 f.
5 Mahaffy, pp. 163 f., 170.

The Alexandrian Greek Verston. 17

Manetho’s Greek history of Egyptian institutions may well
have yielded also a translation into Greek of the Hebrew
sacred books. The presence of a large Jewish colony at
Alexandria could hardly have failed to awaken in the King
and his scholars of the Museum an interest in the ancient laws
and literature of the Jewish race. For these reasons modern
scholars have for the most part shewn no desire to disturb the
tradition which assigns the Alexandrian version of the Law to
the days of Philadelphus.

One exception must be noted. The late Professor Gratz
maintained with much ingenuity that the Greek Pentateuch was
a work of the reign of Philometor, thus transferring the inception
of the LXx. from the middle of the third century to the middle
of the second}.

His opinion was based partly on the fact that the Jewish
colony at Alexandria touched the zenith of its influence under
Philometor, partly on internal grounds. Under the latter head
he insisted on the translation in Lev. xxiii. 11 of the phrase NM!)
Naw by τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πρώτης. The Pharisees understood the
word Naw in that context to refer to the day after the Paschal
Sabbath i.e. Nisan 15, while the Sadducees adhered to the usual
meaning. Gratz argued with much force that, since the rendering
of the LxXx. shews evident signs of Pharisaic influence, the
version itself must have been later than the rise of the Pharisees.
But v. 15 renders the same words by ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπαύριον τοῦ
σαββάτου, and as it is not likely that a translator who had of set
purpose written τῆς πρώτης in v. 11 would have let τοῦ σαββάτου
escape him a little further down, we must suppose that τοῦ co.
stood originally in both verses and that τῆς mp. is due to a
Pharisaic corrector who left his work incomplete. But a partial
correction of the passage in the interests of Pharisaism points to
the version being pre-Maccabean, a conclusion quite opposite
to that which Dr Gratz desired to draw?

There is, moreover, positive evidence that the Alexandrian
version of Genesis at least was in existence considerably before
the beginning of Philometor’s reign. It was used by the
Hellenist Demetrius, fragments of whose treatise Περὶ τῶν ἐν

1 Gesch. Juden’, iii. p. 615 ff.
2 See Expository Times, il. pp. 209, 277 f.

18 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ βασιλείᾳ are preserved by Clement (s¢vom. 1. 21)
and Eusebius ( fraep. ev. ix. 21, 29). The following specimens
may suffice to prove this assertion.

Demetrius.
ἀντὶ TOV μήλων TOD μανδρα-

γόρου.

ἄγγελον τοῦ θεοῦ παλαῖσαι
καὶ ἅψασθαι τοῦ πλάτους τοῦ
μηροῦ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβ.

λέγειν κτηνοτρόφους αὐτοὺς

Genesis (LXxX.).

evpev μῆλα pavdpayopov...
ἀντὶ τῶν μανδραγορῶν (Xxx,
4}.

ἐπάλαιεν...καὶ ἥψατο τοῦ
πλάτους τοῦ μηροῦ ἼἸακωβ
(xxx. 58),

ἐρεῖτε "Ανδρες κτηνοτρόφοι

ἊΨ
εἰναι.

ἐσμέν (xlvi. 34).

As Demetrius carries his chronology no further than the
reign of Philopator, it may be assumed that he lived under the
fourth Ptolemy’. He is thus the earliest of the Alexandrian
Hellenistic writers; yet equally with the latest he draws his
quotations of the Book of Genesis from the Lxx. It may
fairly be argued that a version, which at the beginning of the
third century had won its way to acceptance among the literary
Jews of Alexandria, probably saw the light not later than the
reign of Philadelphus.

13. Both ‘Aristeas’ and Aristobulus associate with the
inception of the Lxx. the name of Demetrius Phalereus’.
Aristobulus merely represents Demetrius as having ‘negociated
the matter’ (πραγματευσαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων), but Aristeas
states that he did so (1) in the capacity of head of the royal
library (κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης), and (2)
in the days of Philadelphus, with whom he appears to be on
intimate terms. Both these particulars are certainly unhis-
torical. Busch* has shewn that the office of librarian was

1 Cf. Freudenthal, Aellen. Studien, Ὁ. 41.

2 The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila strangely says: ἦν δὲ οὗτος ὁ
Δημήτριος τῷ γένει EBpaios.

3 De bibliothecariis Alexandrinis (1884), p.

1 ff.; cf. Droysen, iii.
p- 256; Mahaffy, p. 115.

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 19

filled under Philadelphus by Zenodotus of Ephesus, and on the
decease of Zenodotus by Eratosthenes. Moreover Demetrius,
so far from being intimate with Philadelphus, was sent into
exile soon after the accession of that monarch, and died a
little later on from the bite of an asp, probably administered
at the King’s instigation (c. B.c. 283)’. Thus, if Demetrius took
part in the inception of the Lxx., he must have done so during
the reign of Soter. This is not in itself improbable. He
had taken refuge in Egypt as early as B.c. 307, and for many
years had been a trusted adviser of the first Ptolemy; and
it is not unlikely that the project of translating the Jewish
Law was discussed between him and the royal founder of the
Alexandrian library, and that the work was really due to his
suggestion’, though his words did not bear fruit until after his
death. The point is of importance to the student of the Lxx.
only in so far as it has to do with the question whether the
version was made under official guidance. The breakdown of
the chronology of this part of the story of Aristeas leaves us
free to abandon the hypothesis of direct intervention on the
part of the King, and internal evidence certainly justifies us
in doing so. An official version would assuredly have avoided
such barbarisms as yewpas, «iv, σάββατα“, when such Greek
equivalents as προσήλυτος, δίχουν, ἀνάπαυσις, were available.
The whole style of the version is alien from the purpose of a
book intended for literary use, nor is it conceivable that under
such circumstances Jewish translators, Palestinian or Alex-
andrian, would have been left without the advice and help of
experts in the Greek tongue.

Thus everything points to the conclusion that the version

1 Diog. Laert. v. 78. The statement rests on the authority of Hermippus
Callimachus (¢em. Ptolemy III.).

2 Cf. Plutarch, Apophthegm. viii. Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεὺς Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ
βασιλεῖ παρήνει τὰ περὶ βασιλείας Kal ἡγεμονίας βιβλία κτᾶσθαι καὶ ἀνα-

γινώσκειν.

3 Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 8 f.

20 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

arose out of the needs of the Alexandrian Jews. Whilst in
Palestine the Aramaic-speaking Jews were content with the
interpretation of the Methurgeman, at Alexandria the Hebrew
lesson was gladly exchanged for a lesson read from a Greek
translation, and the work of the interpreter was limited to
exegesis'. In the closing paragraphs of the letter of Aristeas
which describe the joy with which the work of the LxxIl.
was welcomed by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria,
the writer unconsciously reveals the true history of the ver-
sion, when he represents the Jews as having heard and
welcomed the Greek Pentateuch before it was presented to
the King*®. But it is not improbable that the King encouraged
the work of translation with the view of promoting the use
of the Greek language by the settlers* as well as for the purpose
of gratifying his own curiosity.

14. The Greek of the Alexandrian Pentateuch is Egyptian,
and, as far as we can judge, not such as Palestinian translators
would have written. Instances are not indeed wanting of
translations executed in Egypt by Palestinians ; the most note-
worthy* is the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which, as the
prologue tells us, was turned into Greek by the grandson of
the writer after a prolonged visit to the banks of the Nile (παρα-
γενηθεὶς eis Αἴγυπτον καὶ ovyxpovicas); but the clumsy Greek
of the prologue, and the stiff artificiality of the book, offer a

1 Cf. Philo ap. Eus. praep. ev. viii. 7 τῶν ἱερέων δέ τις παρών, ἢ τῶν
γερόντων els, ἀναγινώσκει τοὺς ἱεροὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖται."
But ἐξηγεῖται is ambiguous.

2 The hope of winning converts may have been among the motives
which inspired the translators and gained a ready welcome for their work ;
cf. the prol. to Sirach: οὐ μόνον αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας δέον ἐστὶν
ἐπιστήμονας γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς δύνασθαι τοὺς φιλομαθοῦντας
χρησίμους εἶναι καὶ λέγοντας καὶ ypddovras—where however the influence of
the Jewish Scriptures on pagans is regarded as indirect, and not immediate.

* Cf. Mommsen, Provinces, ii. p. 164.

4 Another example is offered by the Greek Esther, if the note at the
end of the book is to be trusted (ἔφασαν.. ἑρμηνευκέναι Λυσίμαχον
Πτολεμαίου τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ).

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 21

marked contrast to the simple style of the Pentateuch. That
the latter is mainly the work of Alexandrian Jews appears from
more than one consideration. An older generation of Biblical
scholars pointed to the occurrence in the Lxx., and especially in
the Pentateuch, of such words of Egyptian origin as ἄχει (Gen.
xli. 2 ff.), κόνδυ (Gen. xliv. 2 ff.), ἶβις (Lev. x1. 17 ; Deut. xiv. 16),
βύσσος (Exod. xxv.—xxxix. passim) and such characteristically
Egyptian terms as δίδραχμον, ἀλήθεια (= ODN), ἀρχιμάγειρος,
ἀρχιοινοχόος and the like. The argument is not conclusive,
since after the time of Alexander the κοινή contained elements
drawn from various localities’. But recent discoveries in Egypt
have yielded a criterion of Egyptian Greek which has been
applied to the Lxx. with definite results. In 1892 Prof. Mahaffy
was able to write: “in the vocabulary of the papyri we find a
closer likeness to the Greek of the Lxx. than to any other book
I could name’.” This statement has been abundantly justified
by the publication of Deissmann’s Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895),
and lVeue Bibelstudien (1897), where a number of the peculiar
or characteristic words and forms of the Lxx. are shewn to
have been in common use among Egyptian Greeks of the third
and second centuries B.c.* The vocabulary and style of the Lxx.
will be treated in a later chapter; for the present it is enough
to say that they are such as to discredit the attribution of the
Greek Pentateuch to a company consisting exclusively or chiefly
of Palestinian Jews. The Lxx. as a whole, or at any rate
the earlier part of the collection, is a monument of Alexandrian
Greek as it was spoken by the Jewish colony in the Delta
under the rule of the Ptolemies *

1 See Hody, ii. 4; Eichhorn, p. 472; H. H. A. Kennedy, Sources of
N. T. Greek, p. 24f.; on the other hand, cf. Frankel, Vorstudten, p. 40 ff.

2 Exp. Times, 111. p. 291; cf. Mahaffy, Greek life, p. 198 f.

8 Evidence of this kind will doubtless accumulate as new volumes of
papyri are issued. The verbal indices which usually accompany such
collections offer a rich field for the Biblical student who will be at the

pains to explore them.
4 See however Buhl, p. 124.

22 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

The story of the rolls being written in letters of gold and
sent to the King by the High Priest may be dismissed at once;
it belongs to the picturesque setting of the romance. But
there is nothing improbable in the statement that the Hebrew
rolls were freshly brought from Jerusalem’, for communication
between Jerusalem and Alexandria was frequent during the
reigns of the earlier Ptolemies. Yet the legend may be intended
to represent the loyalty of the colony towards the μητρόπολις,
and the conviction of the Alexandrian Jews that in their Greek
version they possessed the same sacred texts which their
brethren in Judaea read in Hebrew. Nothing was further
from their intention than to create an Alexandrian canon,
or an Alexandrian type of text. The point is one which it
is important to remember.

The welcome accorded to the Greek version by the Jews of
Alexandria was doubtless, as Aristeas represents, both cordial
and permanent; nor need we doubt that Philadelphus and his
scholars approved what had been done. Insignificant and even
intolerable as a literary work, the version promised to supply
the Greek scholars of Alexandria with a trustworthy account of
Hebrew origins. ‘There is however little or no trace of the use
of the Lxx. by pagan writers”; the style was probably enough
to deter them from studying it, and the Hellenistic Jews of a
somewhat later date rendered the task unnecessary by present-
ing the history of their country in more attractive forms. As
to the preservation of the original in the Alexandrian libraries,
we have no evidence beyond Tertullian’s scarcely trustworthy
statement, “ Hodie usque Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum
ipsis Hebraicis litteris exhibentur®.”’

1 According to Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. τὸ f.) the rolls only were
sent in the first instance, and the interpreters followed in consequence of a
second application from Philadelphus. This form of the story suggests
that the desire for a translation may have been stimulated by the arrival of
MSS. from Jerusalem.

* See, however, Mahaffy, “7157. of Gk. class. literature, 1. ii. p. 195.

3 Apol. 18; cf. Justin, apol. i. 31, Chrys. 97. 1 adv. Fud., and Epiph.

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 23

15. It has been stated that the letter of Aristeas does not
profess to describe the origin of any part of the Alexandrian
Bible except the Pentateuch. This was evident to Josephus :
ant. 1. prooem. 3 οὐδὲ yap πᾶσαν ἐκεῖνος (sc. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ δεύτε-
ρος) ἔφθη λαβεῖν τὴν ἀναγραφήν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ τοῦ νόμου παρέδο-
σαν οἱ πεμφθέντες ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν εἰς ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν. Christian
writers, however, failed to notice this limitation; the whole
Greek Bible was familiarly known as the version of the Lxx.,
and no misgivings were felt upon the matter except by Jerome,
whose intercourse with the Rabbis had opened his eyes on this
and other matters about which the Jews were better informed :
‘“‘tota schola Judaeorum (he writes) quinque tantum libros
Moysis a Lxx. translatos asserunt’.” Epiphanius goes so
far as to apportion the books of the Hebrew canon among
thirty-six pairs of translators’. Nevertheless the Jews were
unquestionably right; Aristeas has nothing to say about the
translation of any books beyond the first five. His silence as
to the Prophets and the Hagiographa is entirely consistent with
the conditions of the period in which he fixes his story. The
canon of the Prophets seems to have scarcely reached comple-
tion before the High-Priesthood of Simon II. (219—199B.c.)*.
If this was so in Palestine, at Alexandria certainly there would
be no recognised body of Prophetic writings in the reign of the
second Ptolemy. The Torah alone was ready for translation,
for it was complete, and its position as a collection of sacred
books was absolutely secure.

16. But when the example had once been set of rendering
sacred books into Greek, it would assuredly be followed as
often as fresh rolls arrived from Jerusalem which bore the stamp

de mens. et pond. § 11. The library in the Brucheion perished in the time
of Julius Caesar; that of the Serapeion is said to have been destroyed by
Omar, A.D. 640.
1 In Ezech. v.; cf. in Gen. xxxi., i2 Mich. ii. See the Talmudical
passages cited by Hody, p. 269. 2 de mens et pond. 3 54.
"πε γε ΘΕΟΣ of the O. T., p. 113. ΟἹ. Buhl, p. 12.

24 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

of Palestinian recognition, if a bilingual Jew was found ready
to undertake the task. A happy accident enables us to estimate
roughly the extent to which this process had gone by the sixth
or seventh decade of the second century. The writer of the
prologue to Sirach, who arrived in Egypt in the 38th year of
Euergetes—i.e. in the year 132 B.C. if, as is probable, the
Euergetes intended was the second of that name—incidentally
uses words which imply that “the Law, the Prophets, and the
rest of the books” were already current in a translation (ov
yap ἰσοδυναμεῖ αὐτὰ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ᾿Εβραιστὶ λεγόμενα, καὶ ὅταν
μεταχθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν" οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς
ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ Tov βιβλίων οὐ μικρὰν
τὴν διαφορὰν ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λεγόμενα). This sentence reveals
the progress which had been made in the work of translation
between the second Ptolemy and the ninth. Under Euergetes 11.
the Alexandrian Jews possessed, in addition to the original
Greek Pentateuch, a collection of prophetic books, and a
number of other writings belonging to their national literature’
which had not as yet formed themselves into a complete
group. The latter are doubtless the books which are known as
3 Π3 or Hagiographa. Since the author of the prologue was
a Palestinian Jew, we may perhaps assume that under αἱ
προφητεῖαι and τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων he includes such books of
both classes as were already in circulation in Palestine. If this
inference is a safe one, it will follow that all the ‘ Prophets’ of
the Hebrew canon, ‘former’ and ‘latter,’ had been translated
before B.C. 132.

With regard to the Hagiographa, in some cases we have
data which lead to a more definite conclusion. Eupolemus,
who, if identical with the person of that name mentioned in
1 Macc. vill. 17, wrote about the middle of the second century,
makes use of the Greek Chronicles, as Freudenthal has

1 Cf. prol. supra: τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων

βιβλίων.

The Alexandrian Greek Version. 25

clearly shewn’. Ezra-Nehemiah, originally continuous with
Chronicles, was probably translated at the same time as that
book. Aristeas (not the pseudonymous author of the letter, but
the writer of a treatise περὶ Ἰουδαίων) quotes the book of Job
according to the Lxx., and has been suspected’ of being the
author of the remarkable codicil attached to it (Job xlii. 17 d—e).
The footnote to the Greek Esther, which states that that book
was brought to Egypt in the 4th year of “ Ptolemy and Cleo-
patra” (probably i.e. of Ptolemy Philometor), may have been
written with the purpose of giving Palestinian sanction to the
Greek version of that book; but it vouches for the fact that
the version was in circulation before the end of the second
century B.c.” The Psalter of the Lxx. appears to be quoted in
rt Macc. vil. 17 (Ps. lxxviii. =]xxix. 2), and the Greek version of
1 Maccabees probably belongs to the first century B.c. At
what time the Greek Psalter assumed its present form there is
no evidence to shew, but it is reasonable to suppose that the
great Palestinian collections of sacred song did not long remain
unknown to the Alexandrian Jews®* ; and even on the hypothesis
of certain Psalms being Maccabean, the later books of the
Greek Psalter may be assigned to the second half of the second
century.

17. On the whole, though the direct evidence is frag-
mentary, it is probable that before the Christian era Alexandria
possessed the whole, or nearly the whole, of the Hebrew
Scriptures in a Greek translation. For the first century a.D.
we have the very important evidence of Philo, who uses the
Lxx. and quotes largely from many of the books. There are
indeed some books of the Hebrew canon to which he does not
seem to refer, i.e. Ruth, Ecciesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Lamen-
tations, Ezekiel, Daniel‘. But, as Professor Ryle points out,

Ye τοϑ. τὸ; Ch. 5 185- 2410 Doh ons
3 Cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, pp. 12, 83.
4 Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxi. f.

26 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

‘it may be safely assumed that Ruth and Lamentations were,
in Philo’s time, already united to Judges and Jeremiah in the
Greek Scriptures” ; and Ezekiel, as one of the greater Prophets,
had assuredly found its way to Alexandria before A.D. 1.
Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Daniel, which ‘‘seem to have
been among the latest books to be received into the Sacred
Canon’,” may have been purposely neglected by Philo, as not
possessing canonical authority. But it would be precarious
to conclude that they had not been as yet translated into
Greek; the Book of Esther, as we have seen, was probably
current at Alexandria during the second century B.c. Two other
Jewish, but not Alexandrian, authorities assist us to ascertain the
contents of the Greek Bible in the first century a.p. (a) The
New Testament shews a knowledge of the Lxx. version in most
of the books which it quotes, and it quotes all the books of the
Old Testament except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes,
the Song of Solomon, and certain of the Minor Prophets*. As
in the case of Philo, it is possible, though scarcely probable,
that Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song were passed by as
not having received the stamp of canonicity ; but the silence
of the Apostolic writers about them does not in any case prove
that Greek translations of these books were not yet in circula-
tion among Palestinian Jews. (0) Josephus, who knew and used
the Lxx., unfortunately has no explicit statement as to the
extent of the Greek version; but his list of the Hebrew books
is practically identical with our own, and, as it occurs in a
treatise intended for Gentile readers, it is perhaps safe to
assume that he speaks of books accessible in a translation ;
‘in other words, that he writes with the Lxx. version
before him’*.”

Thus while the testimony of the first century A.D. does not
absolutely require us to believe that all the books of the

1 Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xxxiii.
* Ryle, Canon, Ὁ. 151. ἘΞ Lh, Da i632.

The TE Greek Version. 27 εἰ

Hebrew canon had been translated and were ἜΣ in a
Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view is not im-
probable ; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all
contained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian
Church received from its Jewish predecessors. It is another
question whether the versions were all of Alexandrian origin,
or the only Greek translations which claimed to represent
the corresponding Hebrew books. In a few cases there were
certainly rival interpretations or recensions of the same book
(e.g. in Judges, Daniel, Tobit). But as a whole the work of
translation was doubtless carried out at Alexandria, where it
was begun; and the Greek Bible of the Hellenistic Jews and
the Catholic Church may rightly be styled the Alexandrian
Greek version of the Old Testament.

LITERATURE. The following list embraces a mere fraction
of the vast literature of the Alexandrian Version. The selection
has been made with the purpose of representing the progress of
knowledge since the middle of the seventeenth century.

L. Capellus, crztéca sacra, 1651; J. Pearson, praefatio parae-
netica, 1655; Ussher, Syztagma, 1655; Walton, prolegomena,
1657; Hottinger, dzsertationum fasciculus, 1660; I. Voss, de
LXX,. interpretibus, 1661—1663; J. Morinus, EL xercttationes,
1669; R. Simon, héstoire critique du Vieux Testament*, 1685 ;
H. Hody, de L201. textibus originalibus, 1705; H. Owen, Enguzry
into the text of the LXX., 1769; Brief account of the LXX.,
1787; Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, v. ff., 1779 ff.; White,
Letter to the Bp of London, 1779; Fabricius-Harles, 111. 658 ff.,
1793; 1. Holmes, Episcopo Dunelm. epistola, 1795; pracfatio
ad Pentateuchum, 1798; Schleusner, ofuscula critica, 1812;
Topler, de Pentateucht tnterpretat. Alex. zndole, 1830; Dahne,
jud.-alexandr. Philosophie, 1834; Grinfield, Apology for the
LXX., 1841; Frankel, Vorstudien zur d. LXX., 1841; uber
den Einfluss da. palast. Exegese auf die alexandr. Hermeneuttih,
1851; do., “ber paldst. u. alexandr. Schriftforschung, 1854;
Thiersch, de Pentateuchi vers. Alexandr.. 1841; Constantinus
Oeconomus, περὶ τῶν ο΄ ἑρμηνευτῶν, 1849; Churton, 7he /nfluence
of the LXX. upon the progress of Christianity, 1861; Ewald,
Gesch. des Volkes Israel*, 1868; E. Nestle, Septuaginta-Studien,
i. 1886, ii. 1896; 5. R. Driver, Motes on Samuel (Introd. § 3f.),
1890; P. de Lagarde, Septwaginta-Studien, i. 1891, ii. 1892;

28 The Alexandrian Greek Version.

Buhl, Kanon u. Text der A. T., 1891; A. Loisy, histoire critique
du texte et des versions de la Bible, 1892; Hatch, Essays on
Biblical Greek, 1892; W. Robertson Smith, O. 7: zz the Jewish
Church*, 1892; E. Klostermann, Amalecta zur LXX*., 1895;

Nestle, Urtext τε. Ubersetzungen der Bibel, 1897. Monographs
on special books or particular aspects of the subject will be
enumerated elsewhere.

The student should also consult the best Introductions to the
O. T., especially those of Eichhorn (1777 ff.), De Wette-Schrader
(1869), Bleek-Wellhausen® (1893), Konig (1893); and the Ency-
clopedias and Bible Dictionaries, especially the articles on the
Septuagint in Smith’s D. B. iii. (Selwyn), the Excyclopedia
Britannica? (Wellhausen), and the Real-Encykl. αὶ prot. Theo-
logie τ. Kirche* (Nestle; also published in a separate form,

under the title Urtext τι. Ubersetzungen, & ¢.).

CEA Pe Res is

LATER GREEK VERSIONS.

1. Art Alexandria and in Egypt generally the Alexandrian
version was regarded, as Philo plainly says, with a reverence
scarcely less than that which belonged to the original. It was
the Bible of the Egyptian Jews, even of those who belonged to
the educated and literary class. This feeling was shared by
the rest of the Hellenistic world. In Palestine indeed the
version seems to have been received with less enthusiasm, and
whether it was used in the synagogues is still uncertain. But
elsewhere its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews was universal
during the Apostolic age and in the next generation.

On the question of the use of the LXX. in the synagogues see
Hody ii. 1. 1, Frankel, Vorstudzen, p. 56 ff., Konig, Eznlectung,
p. 105 ff.; the negative is stoutly maintained by J. Lightfoot,
hor. Flebr. (add. to 1 Cor. xiv.). If the Ep. to the Hebrews
was addressed to the Church of Jerusalem, the preponderating
use of the LXX. in its quotations from the O.T. is strong
evidence, so far as it goes, for the acceptance of the Lxx. by
Palestinian Hellenists. Its use by St Paul vouches for the
practice of the Hellenists of Asia Minor and Europe; no rival
version had gained circulation at Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome.
In the next century we have the evidence of Justin (afol. i. 31
ἔμειναν ai βίβλοι [the translated books] καὶ παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίοις μέχρι
τοῦ δεῦρο καὶ πανταχοῦ παρὰ πᾶσίν εἰσιν ᾿Ιουδαίοις : dial. 72 αὕτη
ἡ περικοπὴ ἡ ἐκ τῶν λόγων τοῦ Ἰερεμίου ἔτι ἐστὶν ἐγγεγραμμένη
ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις τῶν ἐν συναγωγαῖς Ἰουδαίων), Tertullian
(apfol. τὸ ‘‘Judaei palam lectitant”), Pseudo-Justin (cohort. ad
Gr. 13 τὸ δὲ παρ᾽ ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἔτι καὶ viv τὰς TH ἡμετέρᾳ θεοσεβείᾳ

30 Later Greek Versions.

διαφερούσας σώζεσθαι βίβλους, θείας προνοίας ἔργον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
γέγονεν... ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων συναγωγῆς ταύτας ἀξιοῦμεν προκο-
μίζεσθαι).

2. When the Lxx. passed into the hands of the Church
and was used in controversy with Jewish antagonists, the Jews
not unnaturally began to doubt the accuracy of the Alexandrian
version (Justin, da/, 68 τολμῶσι λέγειν τὴν ἐξήγησιν ἣν ἐξηγή-
σαντο οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα ὑμῶν πρεσβύτεροι παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ τῶν
Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεῖ γενόμενοι μὴ εἶναι ἔν τισιν ἀληθῆ). The
crucial instance was the rendering of ΠΡΟΣ by παρθένος in Isa.
vil. 14, where νεᾶνις, it was contended, would have given the
true meaning of the Hebrew word (20. 71, 84; Iren. 111. 21. 1).
But the dissatisfaction with which the Lxx. was regarded by
the Jewish leaders of the second century was perhaps not
altogether due to polemical causes. The Lxx. “did not suit
the newer school of [ Jewish] interpretation, it did not correspond
with the received text'.” An official text differing con-
siderably from the text accepted in earlier times had received
the approval of the Rabbis, and the Alexandrian version,
which represented the older text, began to be suspected
and to pass into disuse. Attempts were made to provide
something better for Greek-speaking Israelites (Justin, dza/. 71
αὐτοὶ ἐξηγεῖσθαι πειρῶνται. Of two such fresh translations
Irenaeus speaks in terms of reprehension (/.¢. οὐχ ws ἔνιοί φασιν
τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν γραφήν... ὡς Θεοδοτίων.... ὁ
᾿Ἐφέσιος καὶ ᾿Ακύλας ὁ ΠΠοντικός, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι).
Origen, who realised the importance of these translations, was
able to add to those of Aquila and Theodotion the version of
Symmachus and three others which were anonymous*. Of the
anonymous versions little remains, but Aquila, Theodotion, and
Symmachus are represented by numerous and in some cases
important fragments.

1 Robertson Smith, Zhe O. 7. im the F Ch., p. 643 cf. 2b. p. 87f. 3
Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 63 ff.; cf. Buhl, p. 118 f.
2 Eus. By evi. (76.

Later Greek Versions. 31

3. AquiLA. The name had been borne in the Apostolic
age by a native of Pontus who was of Jewish birth (Acts xviii. 2
᾿Ιουδαῖον ὀνόματι ᾿Ακύλαν, Ποντικὸν τῷ γένει). Aquila the trans-
lator was also of Pontus, from the famous sea-port' Sinope,
which had been constituted by Julius Caesar a Roman colony ;
but he was of Gentile origin. He lived in the reign of Hadrian
(A.D. 117—138), and was a connexion of the Emperor (zev6epi-
dns, Epiph., Dial. of Timothy and Aquila; wevOepos, Ps.-Ath.,
Chron. Pasch.). adrian employed his relative to superintend
the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, and
while there Aquila was converted to Christianity by Christians
who had returned from Pella. Refusing, however, to abandon
the pagan practice of astrology, he was excommunicated ; upon
which he shewed his resentment by submitting to circumcision
and attaching himself to the teaching of the Jewish Rabbis.
The purpose of his translation was to set aside the interpreta-
tion of the Lxx., in so far as it appeared to support the views
of the Christian Church.°

This is the story of Epiphanius (de mens. et fond. 14 sq. :
λαβὼν [sc. 6 ᾿Αδριανὸς] τὸν ᾿Ακύλαν τοῦτον.. “Ἕλληνα ὄντα καὶ αὑτοῦ
πενθερίδην, ἀπὸ Σινώπης δὲ τῆς Πόντου ὁρμώμενον, καθίστησιν
αὐτὸν ἐκεῖσε ἐπιστατεῖν τοῖς ἔργοις κτλ....πικρανθεὶς δὲ... προσηλυ-
τεύει καὶ περιτέμνεται ᾿Ιουδαῖος" καὶ ἐπιπόνως φιλοτιμησάμενος
ἐξέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν μαθεῖν τὴν “EBpaiwy διάλεκτον καὶ τὰ αὐτῶν στοιχεῖα.
ταύτην δὲ ἀκρότατα παιδευθεὶς ἡρμήνευσεν οὐκ ὀρθῷ λογισμῷ χρησά-
μενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως διαστρέψῃ τινὰ τῶν ῥητῶν, ἐνσκήψας τῇ τῶν of’
ἑρμηνείᾳ ἵνα τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς μεμαρτυρημένα ἄλλως
ἐκδώσει). The same tale is told in substance by the Pseudo-
Athanasian author of Syzofszs script. sacr., c. 77, and in the
Dialogue between Timothy and Aguila printed in Axnecdota
Oxou., class. ser. pt vill. According to the writer of the Dialogue
Aquila learned Hebrew in his 4oth year, and there are other
features peculiar to this form of the story which have led the
editor, Mr F. C. Conybeare, to conjecture that it is independent
of the Epiphanian narrative, though derived from the same source,

1 Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 27 f.; cf. Hort, Commentary
on i Peter, p. 172 ff.

32 Later Greek Versions.

which he believes to have been ultimately the history of Ariston
of Pella (of. czt. p. xxvi. ff.). An Aquila figures in the Clement-
ine romance (hom. 11. sqq., vecogn. 11. sqq.); the name and
character were perhaps suggested by some floating memories of
the translator. Cf. Lagarde, Clementina, p. 12 f.

That Aquila was a proselyte to Judaism is attested by the
Jewish tradition (Jer. Talm. deg. 1. 11, Kiddush. 1. 1), in
which he appears as 133, 6 προσήλυτος. After his conversion
to Judaism, Aquila became a pupil of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua
(Meg. f. 71 ¢) or, according to another authority, of R. Akiba
(Kiddush. f. 59 a). The latter statement seems to have been
current among the Jews of Palestine in Jerome’s time (Hieron.
in Isa. vill. 14 ‘“‘scribae et Pharisaei quorum suscepit scholam
Akybas, quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant”’), and
it derives some confirmation from the character of the version.

According to Epiphanius the /orwt of Aquila is to be
placed in the 12th year of Hadrian (Epiph. de mens. et ond. 13
᾿Αδριανὸς ἔτη κα΄, οὗτινος τῷ δωδεκάτῳ ἔτει ᾿Ακύλας ἐγνωρίζετο... ὡς
εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ χρόνου τῆς ἑρμηνείας τῶν Of ἑρμηνευτῶν ἕως ᾿Ακύλα
τοῦ ἑρμηνευτοῦ, ἤγουν ἕως δωδεκάτου ἔτους ᾿Αδριανοῦ, ἔτη vA’ καὶ
μῆνας δ. The 12th year of Hadrian was Α.Ὁ. 128—g9, the year
in which the Emperor began to rebuild Aelia. This date is
doubtless approximately correct, if Aquila was a pupil of R.
Akiba, who taught from A.D. 95 to A.D. 135°, or even of R.
Eliezer and R. Joshua, who immediately preceded Akiba. It
must have taken the Greek proselyte many years to acquire an
adequate knowledge of Hebrew and of the Rabbinical methods
of interpretation, and under these circumstances his great work
could hardly have been completed before the third decade of
the second century. When Irenaeus wrote his third book, in

1 The name is written Do»py, ὈΟῬΝ, pip, or pbyrpy, and in the
Bab. Talmud, pidpon. On the identity of Aquila with Onkelos see Anger
de Onkelo Chaldaico (before 1845), Friedmann Ovkelos u. Akylas (Wien,
1896); or the brief statement in Buhl, p. 173.

2 Field, Hexapla, prolegg. p. xviil.

Later Greek Versions. 33

the eighth decade, Aquila’s translation might still be regarded
as comparatively recent (τῶν νῦν μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν
γραφήν... ὡς... ᾿Α κυλας).

4. It was natural that the version of Aquila should be
received with acclamation by his co-religionists. His teachers
congratulated him in the words of Ps. xlv. 2, DUN 30 DYB{H)"
The Talmud quotes or refers to his translation of not a few
Massaves, (Gen. xvil. τ; Lev. xix. 20, 23, 40; Esth. 1. 65 Prov.
MMM 21; ΧΣΥ͂. ΤΙ; Isa. i. .20; Ezek. xvi. 10, xxii. 43°; Dan.
v. 5, Vili. 13). In Origen’s time he was trusted implicitly in
Jewish circles, and used by all Jews who did not understand
Hebrew (ef. ad African. 2 φιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένος παρὰ
Ιουδαίοις. -ᾧ μάλιστα εἰώθασιν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν “EBpaiwv διά-
λεκτον χρῆσθαι, ὡς πάντων μᾶλλον ἐπιτετευγμένῳ) ; and the same
preference for Aquila seems to have been characteristic of the
Jews in the fourth and fifth centuries (cf. Jerome on Ezek. ili. 5,
and Augustine de civ. Dei xv. 23), and at a still later period,
for even Justinian, when regulating the public reading of the
Scriptures in the synagogues, thought it expedient to permit
the use of Aquila (zovel/. 146: ‘‘at vero ii qui Graeca lingua
legunt Lxx. interpretum utentur translatione...verum...licentiam
concedimus etiam Aquilae versione utendi”). It was equally
natural that the proselyte’s version should be regarded with
distrust by Christians, who saw in it the work of a champion
of Rabbinism as well as a bold attempt to displace the
Septuagint”. Yet the few Christian writers who were students
of the Hebrew Bible learnt to recognise the fidelity of Aquila’s
work. He was ‘a slave to the letter’ (δουλεύων τῇ ᾿Εβραικῇ
λέξει) ; whatever was wanting in the Hebrew text was not to be

1 Megilla τ. 9: in 55" there is a play upon NH (cf. Gen. ix. 27).

2 See Dr C. Taylor in the preface to Mr Burkitt’s Fragments of Aquila,
p- vi.: ‘‘ Aquila in a sense was not the sole or independent author of the

version, its uncompromising literalism being the necessary outcome of his
Jewish teachers’ system of exegesis.”

S275! 3

34 Later Greek Versions.

found in Aquila (οὐ κεῖται παρὰ τοῖς ᾿Εβραίοις, διόπερ οὐδὲ παρὰ
τῷ ᾿Ακύλᾳ). So Origen σοηΐεββεβ᾽ ; and Jerome, though when
in a censorious mood he does not spare the proselyte (e.g.
praef. in Job, ep. ad. Pammach.), elsewhere admits his honesty
and diligence (ep. ad Damas. 12 ‘non contentiosius, ut quidam
putant, sed studiosius verbum interpretatur ad verbum”; 6.
ad Marcell. “‘iamdudum cum voluminibus Hebraeorum editio-
nem Aquilae confero, ne quid forsitan propter odium Christi
synagoga mutaverit, et—ut amicae menti fatear—quae ad
nostram fidem pertineant roborandam plura reperio”). After
these testimonies from the two most competent witnesses in
the ancient Church, we need not stop to consider the invective
of Epiphanius’.

5. Until the summer of 1897 Aquila’s version was known
to students only from the description of ancient writers, chiefly
Christian, and the fragments of the Hexapla (c. iii.), which
when complete contained the entire work. These sources
were used with admirable skill by Dr Field (pvolegomena in
Flexapla, p. xix. ff.) and Dr C. Taylor (D. C. ZB. art. Hexapla)
to illustrate the purpose and style of Aquila’s work. But an
unexpected discovery has now placed at our disposal several
larger fragments of the version, emanating from a Jewish
source. Among the débris of the Genizah of the Cairo syna-
gogue lately brought to Cambridge through the efforts of Dr
Taylor and Dr Schechter, Mr F. C. Burkitt has been so fortunate
as to discover some palimpsest scraps which under later Hebrew
writing contain in a good uncial hand of the sixth century
Aquila’s translation of 1 Kings xx. g—17 and 2 Kings xxiil.
12—27°*, From the same treasure Dr Taylor has recovered
Pss. xc. 6—13, xcl. 4—104, and a portion of Ps. xxii. The

1 Ep. ad Afric.3. Cf. Aug. 2. c. #7 ee Ds BT

3 Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of
Aguila (Cambridge, 1897).

4 See the facsimile and letterpress prefixed to Sayings of the Fewish
Fathers (ed. 2, 1897).

Later Greek Versions. 35

student will find below specimens of these discoveries, placed
for the purpose of comparison in parallel columns with the

version of the LxXx.

3 Regn. xxi. (1 Kings xx.) 10—13.

ΤΟΣ ΘΟ 8...

το Ng 3.1} \ > \
καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὑτὸν
/

υἱὸς “Adep λέγων Τάδε ποιήσαι
ε \ Ν (ὃ θ 4
μοι ὃ θεὸς καὶ τάδε προσθείη,
Ἢ Lal 4
εἰ ἐκποιήσει ὁ χοῦς Σαμαρείας
~ 3 ’, c Ἂ wn a”
ταῖς ἀλωπεξιν παντὶ τῷ aw
“ “ Il Ν 3 ὍΘ
τοῖς πεζοῖς μου. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη
\
βασιλεὺς

Ἱκανούσθω: μὴ

\ >
και €LTTEV

Ἰσραὴλ
΄ὔ ε
καυχάσθω 6
\ ε ε 3 ΄ 12 \
KupTos ὡς ὃ ὀρθός. καὶ
she te Y 3 ΄, NN /
ἐγένετο ὅτε ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ τὸν λό-
A ἊΣ
γον τοῦτον, πίνων ἦν αὐτὸς καὶ
’ὔ A > > ~ >
πάντες βασιλεῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ev
σκηναῖς: καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς παισὶν
3. ὧι > ΄ ΄ 7 \
αὐτοῦ Οἰκοδομήσατε yapaKka’ καὶ
5 ᾽’ὔ ΕἸ Ν \ /
ἔθεντο χάρακα ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν.
13 Ν io Ν ΄ Φ
καὶ ἰδοὺ προφήτης εἷς προσ-
~ a ΄ ?
ἤλθεν τῷ βασιλεῖ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ
εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει Κύριος ἘΠ
TA ἊΝ κω ἊΝ vA
ἑόρακας τὸν ὄχλον τὸν μέγαν
“A 3 x > Ν ’ὔ 3 Ν
τοῦτον ; ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτὸν
σήμερον εἰς χεῖρας σάς, καὶ
/ φ ΔΝ ΑΝ, ,
γνώσῃ ote ἐγὼ Κύριος.

AQUILA.

10 ἌΝ 7, Ἂς aN
καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν
ε >
vids Abad καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε ποιήσαι-
’ὔ ἣν Ν ’ ’ὔ
σάν μοι θεοὶ καὶ τάδε προσθείη-
Sia: 4 A ’
σαν, εἰ ἐξαρκέσει χοῦς Sapapias
“ A cal ~ ~
τοῖς ALyaow* τοῦ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ
a > , : Ir \ 3 ’
ὃς ἐν ποσίν μου. “Kal ἀπεκρίθη
Ν
βασιλεὺς
Λαλήσατε Μὴ καυχάσθω ζωννύ-

3 \ >
Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν
ς- ε ΄ προ στα
μενος ὡς ὁ περιλυόμενος. καὶ
Ψ ε 4 ~
ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν σὺν TO ῥῆμα
τοῦτο, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔπιννεν αὐτὸς
Ν 6 “ 3 A
καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς ἐν συσκιασμοῖς:
Ν > x , 3 A
καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς δούλους αὐτοῦ
Θέτε: καὶ ἔθηκαν ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν.
Skat ἰδοὺ προφήτης εἷς προσ-
’ὔ Ν >
Ἴγγισεν πρὸς “AaB βασιλέα
3 Ν “Ὁ
Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει
ΞΓΞΡ̓Ρῤ Εἶδες σὺν πάντα τὸν
δὰ Si fe ~ ~) \
oxAov τὸν μέγαν τοῦτον; ἰδοὺ
> Ν δί 3 Ν > nw vd
ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτὸν εἰς χεῖρά σου
, Ἂς (A 7 > ‘\
σήμερον, καὶ γνώσῃ ὅτι ἐγὼ

5331.

1 Cod. A is nearer to Aquila, as the following variants shew: 10 ποιησαι-

σαν μοι οἱ Geo και Tade προσθειησαν A

12 ore] ws Α | παντες οἱ B. A

13 Tw βασ.] pr Tw Αχααβ A | Tov οχλον] pr παντὰ A | εἰς xX. σας σημερον A.
> MS. ye[iAijaclin]; see Burkitt, of. cz. p. 2.

36 Later Greek Versions.

4 Regn. (2 Kings) xxiil. 21—24.

txx: (Cod..B:).

kal ἐνετείλατο ὃ βασιλεὺς
~ ~ ’
παντὶ τῷ λαῷ λέγων Ποιήσατε
~ a ¢ -
πάσχα τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν, καθὼς
γέγραπται ἐπὶ βιβλίου τῆς δια-
/ ΤΑ 22% > > ’ὔ
θήκης ταύτης. ““ὅτι οὐκ ἐγενήθη
τὸ πάσχα τοῦτο ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν τῶν
nw ε » Ν " ’
κριτῶν οἱ ἔκρινον τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ,
Ἀ 4 A ε / /
Kal πάσας Tas ἡμέρας βασιλέων
>
Ἰσραὴλ καὶ βασιλέων ᾿ἸἸούδα-
“ἡ n
367. GAN ἢ TO ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ
ἔτει τοῦ βασιλέως ‘Iwoeia ἐγε-
, ἈΝ ’ nw , > >
νήθη τὸ πάσχα τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν Ἴε-
ρουσαλήμ. kai γε τοὺς θελητὰς
καὶ τοὺς γνωριστὰς καὶ τὰ θερα-
- A A 4 A , A
φεὶν καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα Kal πάντα τὰ
/
προσοχθίσματα τὰ γεγονότα ἐν
γῇ ᾿Ιούδα καὶ ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ.
ἐξῆρεν “I ας. ἵ 7 ov
ἐξῆρεν ᾿Ιωσείας, ἵνα στήσῃ τοὺς
λόγους τοῦ νόμου τοὺς γεγραμ-
“ φ e
μένους ἐπὶ τῷ βιβλίῳ οὗ εὑρεν
Χελκείας ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν οἴκῳ Κυ-

΄
ριου.

AQUILA.

“Ἰ καὶ ἐνετείλατο ὃ βασιλεὺς

Ἁ Ἁ - »“ “- ,
σὺν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ τῴ λέγειν
Ποιήσατε φέσα τῷ 5333 θεῷ
ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ

Ψ -“ ΄ ’ὔ
βιβλίου τῆς συνθήκης ταύτης.
“2 5“ 3 ΕῚ / Ν Ν ,

ὅτι οὐκ ἐποιήθη κατὰ τὸ φέσα

al ε »“» ~ ~
τοῦτο ἀπὸ ἡμερῶν τῶν κριτῶν ot
ΜΝ Ν > Ν Ν “»
ἐκριναν τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ πασῶν

ε fal
ἡμερῶν βασιλέων ἸΙσραὴλ καὶ
βασιλέων ᾿Ιούδα: “ὅτι ἀλλὰ ἐν
> , ΕΣ ΄“
ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ βασι-
λέως Ἰωσιαοὺ ἐποιήθη τὸ φέσα
τοῦτο τῷ 533 ἐν ἸΙερουσαλήμ.
Py ee , \ \ ΄ κ

καὶ Kal γε σὺν τοὺς μάγους καὶ
σὺν τοὺς γνωριστὰς καὶ σὺν τὰ

, . A A ,
μορφώματα Kal σὺν τὰ Kabap-
ματα καὶ σὺν πάντα προσοχθί-

« ε / ΕἸ a? /
σματα ἃ ὡράθησαν ἐν γῇ lovda
καὶ ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ. ἐπέλεξεν Ἴω-
σιαού, ὅπως ἀναστήσῃ τὰ ῥή-
ματα τοῦ νόμου τὰ γεγραμμένα
ἐπὶ τοῦ βιβλίου

“λκιαοὺ ὁ ἱερεὺς οἴκῳ Kupiov’.

[οὗ εὗρεν]

1 The following variants in Cod. A agree with Aquila: 22 πάσων

ἡμέρων A

23 To tacxa]+Tovro A

2 MS. KY; at the end of a line: see Burkitt, p. 16.

Later Greek Versions. 37

Ps. xc. (xci.) 64—13.

Lxx. (Cod. B).
3 Ν , \
ἀπὸ συμπτώματος Kal δαι-
μονίου μεσημβρινοῦ.
πεσεῖται ἐκ τοῦ κλίτους σου
χιλιᾶς,
Ν Ν 3 ὃ € a
καὶ μυριὰς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου,
\ ‘\ Ν > > 7
πρὸς σὲ δὲ οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ:
δπλὴν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς σου κατα-
’
νοήσεις,
3 4 «ε a
ἀνταπόδοσιν ἁμαρτωλῶν
Μ
own.
ε
ϑὅτι σύ, Κύριε, ἡ ἐλπίς μου:
“ ,
τὸν ὕψιστον ἔθου καταφυγήν
σου.
10,2 , x SN ΄
οὐ προσελεύσεται πρὸς σὲ κακά,
καὶ μάστιξ οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ τῷ σκη-
νώματί σου"
mu? A 3 , ee
OTL τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντε-
λεῖται περὶ σοῦ,
τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε ἐν ταῖς
ὁδοῖς σου.
vie a “~ 3 “ ’
ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε,
’, ’ Ν λίθ
μὴ ποτεπροσκόψῃς προς λίθον
τὸν πόδα σου"
9 ’, ἈΝ
ἀσπίδα καὶ

ἐπιβήσῃ.

Ber βασιλίσκον

1. 11 ras odas] pr πάσαις A(R)T

AQUILA.
ἀπὸ δηγμοῦ δαιμ[ ονίζοντος με-
’ὔ
σημβρίας!.
7 “ 3 Ν Xr ’
πεσεῖται ἀπὸ πλαγίου σίου
’
χιλιάς],
καὶ μυριὰς ἀπὸ δεξι[ῶν cov}:
πρὸς σὲ οὐ προσεγγ[ίσει"
ἐκτὸς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς [σου ἐπι-
βλέψεις,

1 9 , 3 A ¥
καὶ ἀπότισιν ἀσεβῶν own.

8

ν
ϑὅτι σύ, AVA, ἐλπίς μου’
σ » 9 , ,
ὕψιστον ἔθηκας οἰκητήριόν
σου.
10,3 ’ Ν Ν “
οὗ μεταχθήσεται πρὸς σὲ κακία,
Ν ε Ἂς > 3 , > /
καὶ ἀφὴ οὐκ ἐγγίσει ἐν σκέπῃ
σου:
"Or. ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖταί
σε,
τοῦ φυλάξαι σε ἐν πάσαις
ὁδοῖς σου"
123 A “- > A 4
ἐπὶ ταρσῶν ἀροῦσίν ce,
μήποτε προσκόψῃ ἐν λίθῳ
[πούς σου]᾽
"ἐπὶ λέαινα[ν]" καὶ ἀσπίδα πατή-

σεις.

2 MS. λεενὰ.

38 Later Greek Versions.

Ps. xci. (xcii.) 5—T1o.

Lxx (Cod. B’).

» A
Sore εὐφρανάς pe, Κύριε, ἐν τῷ
ποιήματί σου,
καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν
σου ἀγαλλιάσομαι.
6" ry λύ 6 Ν μὴ
ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη τὰ ἔργα σου,
Κύριε,
4
σφόδρα ἐβαρύνθησαν ot δια-
λογισμοί σου.
7 cent >» > 4
avnp adpwv ov γνώσεται,

Ν tf Vd
καὶ ἀσύνετος οὐ συνήσει ταῦτα.

55 a? a ἣν ε ‘
ἐν τῷ ἀνατεῖλαι τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς
/
ὡς χόρτον
\ / ’ ε 39
καὶ διέκυψαν πάντες οἱ ἐργα-
Ν 3 Yd
ζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν,
- xa aA
ὅπως ἂν ἐξολεθρευθῶσιν εἰς
Ν lal “ “-
τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰώνος.
A a
ϑσὺ δὲ Ὕψιστος εἰς τὸν aidva,
Κύριε.
. Ν 3
or. ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐχθροί σου -“ἀπο-
λοῦνται,
Ν / ’
καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται πάν-
/ Ν
τες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν
>
ἀνομίαν.

AQUILA.
S[ore ηὔφρανάς pe, AASAA, ἐν

/
κατέργῳ σου,
[ἐν ποιήμασι] χειρῶν σου
αἰνέσω.
S[ws ἐμεγαλύνθη] ποιήματά σου,
5331,
σφόδρα [ἐβαθύνθ]ησαν λογι-
σμοί σου.
ee Ae > , > ,
7[ἀνὴρ] ἀσύνετος ov γνώσεται,
καὶ ἀνόητος οὐ συνήσει σὺν
ταύτην.
δὲν τῷ βλαστῆσαι ἀσεβεῖς ὁμοίως
,
χλόῃ
‘ »” ,
καὶ ἤνθησαν πάντες κατεργα-
/ > /
ζόμενοι ἀνωφελές,
9 ~ > Ν A »”
ἐκτριβῆναι αὐτοὺς ἕως ETL

θϑκαὶ σὺ Ὕψιστος εἰς αἰῶνα,
Ξ331.
τοϊδοὺ οἱ ἐχθροί σου, AAA, ἰδοὺ
ε 3 ’ὔ 3 a
ot ἐχθροί σου ἀπολοῦν-
ται,
, ,
[σκορπι]σθήσονται πάντες κατ-

ἐργαζόμενοι ἀνωφελές].

6. If the student examines these specimens of Aquila’s
work and compares them with the Hebrew and Lxx., the
greater literalness of the later version and several of its most

1 The following variants deserve attention: 6 εβαθυνθ. BabRcaRT

10 pr ore ἰδου οἱ expo cov κε RA#RT

Later Greek Versions. 39

striking peculiarities will at once be apparent. He will notice
especially the following. (1) ‘There are frequent instances of
an absolutely literal rendering of the original, e.g. 1 Kings xx. 10
ὃς ἐν ποσίν μου -Ξ O03 WN (LXX. τοῖς πεζοῖς μου) ; 12 θέτε: καὶ
ἔθηκαν = 0%) wy (LXX. οἰκοδομήσατε χάρακα, καὶ ἔθεντο
χάρακα) ; 2 Kings xxiil. 21 τῷ λέγειν = “ON? (LXx. λέγων) ; 24
ἃ ὡράθησαν = 3872 WS (Lxx. τὰ γεγονότα). (2) Under certain
circumstances! σύν is employed to represent the Hebrew Πὲξ,
when it is the sign of the accusative*; e.g. 1 Kings xx. 12 σὺν
τὸ ῥῆμα-- WITS, 13 σὺν πάντα τὸν ὄχλον -- ἢ ΠΠ oD ny,
2 Kings ΧΧΠΙ. 21 σὺν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ (where the dat. is governed
by the preceding verb), 24 σὺν τοὺς μάγους κτλ. (3) The same
Hebrew words are scrupulously rendered by the same Greek,
6.5. καὶ xai’ye = 03) occurs thrice in one context (2 Kings xxiii.
15, 190, 24); and in Ps. xcil. ὃ, 10 κατεργαζόμενοι ἀνωφελές twice
represents ἰδ by. (4) The transliterations adhere with
greater closeness to the Hebrew than in the Lxx.*; thus MDB
becomes φέσα, TUN Ἰωσιαού, amspen ‘EAkiaov. (5) The Tetra-
grammaton is not transliterated, but written in Hebrew letters,
and the characters are of the archaic type (A941, not 7) ; cf.
Orig. zz Ps. 11., καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
"EBpaiows χαρακτῆρσιν κεῖται τὸ ὄνομα, “EBpaxots δὲ οὐ τοῖς νῦν
ἀλλὰ τοῖς a&pxatotarors—where the ‘most exact copies’ are
doubtless those of Aquila’s version, for there is no reason to
suppose that any copyists of the Alexandrian version hesitated
to write o xs or xe for 117"*, (6) That the crudities of Aquila’s

1 For these see Burkitt, Aguz/a, p. 12.

? This singular use of σύν appears also in the Lxx., but only in Eccle-
siastes and the Song of Songs, which Freudenthal is disposed to assign to
Aguila (p. 65); cf. Konig, Ainlettung, p. 108 ἢ.

3 Aq. does not transliterate 8 7 MY (see Burkitt, p. 14).

+ In a few Hexaplaric Mss. (e.g. Q, 86, 88, 243™8, 264) the Greek letters
ΠΙΠῚ are written for 7171’, but the Greek Mss. use it solely in their

excerpts from the non-Septuagintal columns of the Hexapla, and only the
Hexaplaric Syriac admits IITIII into the text of the Lxx., using it freely

for κύριος, even with a preposition (as ρὲ δῦ), Ceriani expresses the

40 Later Greek Versions.

style are not due to an insufficient vocabulary’ is clear from
his ready use of words belonging to the classical or the literary
type when they appear to him to correspond to the Hebrew
more closely than the colloquialisms of the Lxx. The follow-
ing are specimens; 1 Kings xx. 10 LXX. ἐκποιήσει, Aq. ἐξαρ-
κέσει; LXX. ἀλώπεξιν, Ag. Atydow"; 12 LXX. σκηναῖς, Aq.
συσκιασμοῖς ; 2 Kings xxili. 21 Lxx. διαθήκης, Aq. συνθήκης ;
24 LXX. θεραφείν, Ag. μορφώματα ; LXx. εἴδωλα, Aq. καθάρ-
pata; Ps. xc. 8 ΧΧ. ἀνταπόδοσιν, Aq. ἀπότισιν ; 70. το LXX.
προσελεύσεται, Aq. μεταχθήσεται; LXX. μάστιξ, Aq. ἁφή ; ΧΕΙ.
5 LXX. ποιήματι, Aq. κατέργῳ.

From the fragments which survive in the margins of
hexaplaric MSS. it is possible to illustrate certain other
characteristic features of Aquila which arise out of his extreme
loyalty to the letter of his Hebrew text. (1) Jerome remarks
upon his endeavour to represent even the etymological mean-
ing of the Hebrew words (ad Pammach. 11 ‘‘non solum verba
sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est),”
and by way of example he cites the rendering of Deut. vu.
13, where Aquila substituted χεῦμα, ὁπωρισμόν, στιλπνότητα
for σῖτον, οἶνον, ἔλαιον in order to reflect more exactly the
Hebrew 121, ὉΠ, W¥'—as though, adds Jerome humorously,
we were to use in Latin fuszo, pomatio, splendentia. Similarly,

opinion that the use of IIIIII is due either to Origen or Eusebius, i.e.
one of those fathers substituted ΠΙΠῚ for 93494 in the non-Septuagintal

columns, using the letters to represent the Hebrew characters which were
familiar to them. On the whole subject the student may consult Ceriani,
Monumenta sacra et profana, ii. p. τοῦ ff.; Schleusner s. v. mim, Field,
flexapla ad Esa. i. 2; Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Ὁ. 1135;
Z. D. M. G. (1878), 501, 506. Mr Burkitt acutely points out (p. 16) that
9944 (and doubtless also IILIII) was read as Κύριος, since in one place in
the Aquila fragments where there was no room to write the Hebrew cha-
racters ‘instead of οἴκῳ 9494 we find οἴκῳ kv.”

1 Even Jerome speaks of Aquila as ‘‘eruditissimus linguae Graecae ’
(in Isa. xlix. 5).

2 See Mr Burkitt’s note (p. 26).

>

Later Greek Versions. 41

Aquila represented DOSY by ὀστεοῦν, and avn by ἐπιστημο-
view Or ἐπιστημονοῦν, and even coined the impossible form
ἁφημένος to correspond with 5.22, (2) An attempt is made
to represent Hebrew particles, even such as defy translation ;
thus 7 local becomes the enclitic δὲ (e.g. vorovde = 13131,
Gen. xil. 9, Κυρήνηνδε = ΠῚ, 2 Kings xvi. 9); and similarly
prepositions are accumulated in a manner quite alien from
Greek usage (e.g. εἰς ἀπὸ μακρόθεν = PIN, 2 Kings xix. 25).
(3) Other devices are adopted for the purpose of bringing
the version into close conformity with the original; a word
of complex meaning or form is represented by two Greek
words (e.g. ΠΝ is converted into τράγος ἀπολυόμενος and
ΣΎ into σκιὰ σκιά; a Hebrew word is replaced by a Greek
word somewhat similar in sound, e.g. for ἧχι (Deut. xi. 30)
Aquila gives avAwv, and for O°20A (1 Sam. xv. 23) θεραπεία".
Enough has been said to shew the absurdity of Aquila’s
method when it is regarded from the standpoint of the modern
translator. Even in ancient times such a translation could
never have attained to the popularity which belonged to the
LXx.; that it was widely accepted by the Greek synagogues of
the Empire can only have been due to the prejudice created in
its favour by its known adherence to the standard text and the
traditional exegesis*. The version of Aquila emanated from
a famous school of Jewish teachers ; it was issued with the full
approval of the Synagogue, and its affectation of preserving at
all costs the idiom of the original recommended it to orthodox
Jews whose loyalty to their faith was stronger than their sense
of the niceties of the Greek tongue. For ourselves the work of

1 The student who wishes to pursue the subject may refer to Field,
Prolegg. p. xxi. sqq., and Dr Taylor’s article Hexapla in D. C. B. iii.
p- 17 ff. Jerome speaks more than once of a second edition of Aquila
‘‘quam Hebraei κατ᾽ ἀκρίβειαν nominant.’’ The question is discussed by
(prolegg. xxiv. ff.).

2 See Mr Burkitt’s article Aguz/a in the Fewrsh Quarterly Review, Jan.
1898, p. 211 ff.

42 Later Greek Versions.

Aquila possesses a value which arises from another consideration.
His “high standard of exactitude and rigid consistency give
his translation, with all its imperfections, unique worth for the
critic *.” Its importance for the criticism of the Old Testament
was fully recognised by the two greatest scholars of ancient
Christendom, and there are few things more to be desired by
the modern student of Scripture than the complete recovery of
this monument of the text and methods of interpretation ap-
proved by the chief Jewish teachers of the generation which
followed the close of the Apostolic age.

7. THEODOTION. With Aquila Irenaeus couples Theo-
dotion of Ephesus, as another Jewish proselyte who translated
the Old Testament into Greek (Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ
Ἐφέσιος καὶ “Axvdas...aupdrepor Ιουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι). Him-
self of Asiatic origin, and probably a junior contemporary of
Theodotion, Irenaeus may be trusted when he assigns this
translator to Ephesus, and describes him as a convert to
Judaism. Later writers, however, depart more or less widely
from this statement. According to Epiphanius, Theodotion
was a native of Pontus, who had been a disciple of Marcion of
Sinope before he espoused Judaism. According to Jerome, he
was an Ebionite, probably a Jew who had embraced Ebionitic
Christianity. His foruzt is fixed by Epiphanius in the reign of
the second Commodus, i.e. of the Emperor Commodus, so
called to distinguish him from L. Crionius Commodus, better
known as L. Aurelius Verus.

Epiph. de mens. et pond. 17 περὶ τὴν τοῦ δευτέρου Κομόδου βασι-
λείαν τοῦ βασιλεύσαντος μετὰ τὸν προειρημένον Κόμοδον Λούκιον
Αὐρήλιον ἐ ἔτη ιγ΄, Θεοδοτίων τις Ποντικὸς ἀπὸ τῆς διαδοχῆς Μαρκίωνος
τοῦ αἱρεσιάρχου τοῦ Σινωπίτου, “μηνίων καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ αὐτοῦ αἱρέσει
καὶ εἰς Ἰουδαισμὸν ἀποκλίνας καὶ περιτμηθεὶς καὶ τὴν τῶν Ἐβραίων

φωνὴν καὶ τὰ αὐτῶν στοιχεῖα παιδευθείς, ἰδίως καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε:
Hieron. ef. ad Augustin.; “hominis Judaei atque blasphemi” ;

1 Dr Taylor, pref. to Fragments of Aquila, p. vii.

Later Greek Versions. 43

praef. in Fob: ‘*Tudaeus Aquila, et Symmachus et Theodotio
Judaizantes haeretici”; de virr. zll. 54 ‘‘editiones...Aquilae...
Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionaei”; praef. ad Daniel. :
“Theodotionem, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit,
seu quidam dicant Hebionitam qui altero genere Iudaeus
The date assigned to Theodotion by Epiphanius is obviously
too late, in view of the statement of Irenaeus, and the whole
account suspiciously resembles the story of Aquila. That
within the same century two natives of Pontus learnt Hebrew
as adults, and used their knowledge to produce independent
translations of the Hebrew Bible, is scarcely credible. But it
is not unlikely that ‘Theodotion was an Ephesian Jew or Jewish
Ebionite. The attitude of a Hellenist towards the Alexan-
drian version would naturally be one of respectful considera-
tion, and his view of the office of a translator widely different
from that of Aquila, who had been trained by the strictest
Rabbis of the Palestinian school. And these expectations are
justified by what we know of Theodotion’s work. “Inter veteres
medius incedit” (Hieron. fraef. ad evang.); ‘simplicitate
sermonis a LXx. interpretibus non discordat” ( praef. in Pss.);
‘“‘Septuaginta et Theodotio...in plurimis locis concordant” (771
Ecc. i.)—such is Jerome’s judgement ; and Epiphanius agrees
with this estimate (de mens. et fond. 17: τὰ πλεῖστα τοῖς of"
συνᾳδόντως ἐξέδωκεν). Theodotion seems to have produced a
free revision of the Lxx. rather than an independent version.
The revision was made on the whole upon the basis of the
standard Hebrew text; thus the Job of Theodotion was longer
than the Job of the Lxx. by a sixth part of the whole (Orig.
ep. ad Afric. 3 sqq-, Hieron. praef. ad /ob)*, and in Daniel, on
the other hand, the Midrashic expansions which characterise
1 Marcion flourished c. A.D. 150 ; Commodus was Emperor from 180—
192. The Paschal Chronicle, following Epiphanius, dates the work of
Theodotion A.D. 184.

2. See Field, Hexapla, p. xxxix.; Hatch, Essays, p. 215; Margoliouth,
art. ‘Job’ in Smith’s Bzble Dict. (ed. 2).

44 Later Greek Versions.

the Lxx. version disappear in Theodotion. His practice
with regard to apocryphal books or additional matter appears
not to have been uniform ; he followed the Lxx. in accepting
the additions to Daniel and the supplementary verses in Job’,
and that the book of Baruch found place in his version appears
from certain notes in the margin of the Syro-Hexaplar*; but
there is no evidence that he admitted the non-canonical books
in general.

8. Specimens of Theodotion’s style and manner may be
obtained from the large and important fragments of his work
which were used by Origen to fill up the /acunae in Jeremiah
(Lxx.). The following passage, preserved in the margin of
Codex Marchalianus, will serve as a specimen of his style and
manner’.

Jeremiah xl. (xxxill.) 14—26.

4 Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, φησὶ Κύριος, καὶ ἀναστήσω τὸν
λόγον μου τὸν ἀγαθὸν ὃν ἐλάλησα ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ
ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ιούδα. 5 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ ἐν τῷ
καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀνατελῶ τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνατολὴν δικαίαν, ποιῶν κρίμα
καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν τῇ γῇ. “ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις. σωθήσεται
ἡ Ιουδαία καὶ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ κατασκηνώσει πεποιθυῖα" καὶ τοῦτο
τὸ ὄνομα ὃ καλέσει αὐτὴν Κύριος AIKAIOCYNH ἡλλῶν. 17 ὅτι
τάδε λέγει Κύριος, Οὐκ ἐξολοθρευθήσεται τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνὴρ καθήη-

8 Ν A e A - ͵ὔ
καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι τοῖς Λευίταις

μενος ἐπὶ θρόνον οἴκου Ἰσραήλ" *
οὐκ ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἀνὴρ ἐκ προσώπου μου, ἀναφέρων ὁλοκαυ-
’ Ἀ , 6 ’ὔ 19 \ > ’ὔ λό ’ ‘

τώματα Kat θύων θυσίαν. καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς
Ἰερεμίαν λέγων “ Τάδε λέγει Κύριος Εἰ διασκεδάσετε τὴν
διαθήκην μου τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ τὴν διαθήκην μου τὴν νύκτα, τοῦ
μὴ εἶναι ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα ἐν καιρῷ αὐτῶν ™ καίγε ἡ διαθήκη
μου διασκεδασθήσεται μετὰ Δαυὶδ τοῦ δούλου μον, τοῦ μὴ

1 Orig. ef. ad Afric. 3.

2 See art. Zheodotion in D. C. B. iv. 978.

3 0. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vii. ff., 320 f.

Later Greek Versions. 45

εἶναι αὐτῷ υἱὸν βασιλεύοντα ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ πρὸς
τοὺς Λευίτας τοὺς ἱερεῖς τοὺς λειτουργοῦντας μοι. “5 ὡς οὐκ
ἐξαριθμηθήσεται ἡ δύναμις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐδὲ ἐκμετρηθήσεται ἡ
ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, οὕτως πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα Δαυὶδ τοῦ
δούλου μου καὶ τοὺς Λευίτας τοὺς λειτουργοῦντάς μοι. 7 καὶ
ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν λέγων * ἾΑρά γε οὐκ ides
τί ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐλάλησαν λέγοντες Αἱ δύο πατριαὶ ἃς ἐξελέξατο
Κύριος ἐν αὐταῖς, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀπώσατο αὐτούς ; καὶ τὸν λαόν μου
παρώξυναν τοῦ μη εἶναι ἔτι ἔθνος ἐνώπιόν μου. “5 τάδε λέγει
Κύριος Εἰ μὴ τὴν διαθήκην μου ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἀκριβάσματα
οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, οὐκ ἔταξα, “5 καίγε τὸ σπέρμα Ἰακὼβ καὶ
Δαυὶδ τοῦ δούλου μου ἀποδοκιμῶ, τοῦ μὴ λαβεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρ-
ματος αὐτοῦ ἄρχοντα πρὸς τὸ σπέρμα ᾿Αβραὰμ. καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ
Ἰακώβ: ὅτι ἐπιστρέψω τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν αὐτῶν, καὶ οἰκτειρήσω
αὐτούς".

Unfortunately there is no other Greek version which can be
compared with Theodotion in this passage, for the Lxx. 15
wanting, and only a few shreds of Aquila and Symmachus have
reached us. But the student will probably agree with Field
that the style is on the whole not wanting in simple dignity,
and that it is scarcely to be distinguished from the best manner
of the Lxx.? With his Hebrew Bible open at the place, he will
observe that the rendering is faithful to the original, while it
escapes the crudities and absurdities which beset the excessive
fidelity of Aquila. Now and again we meet with a word un-
known to the Lxx. (e.g. ἀκριβάσματα =MiPh)*, or a reminiscence
of Aquila ; on the other hand Theodotion agrees with the Lxx.
against Aquila in translating ΓΞ by διαθήκη. If in one place

1 Another considerable fragment of Theodotion may be found in Jer.
xlvi. (xxxix.) 4—13, see Ὁ. 7.22 Greek, p. 534 f.

τ flexapla, prolegg. p. xxxix. ‘* Theodotionis stylus simplex et gravis
est.’

3 Cod. A employs ἀκριβασμός in this sense (Jud. v. 15, 3 Regn. xi. 34,
4 Regn. xvii. 15), but under the influence of Theodotion, at least in the last
two passages; see Field ad Joc.

46 Later Greek Versions.

Theodotion is more obscure than Aquila (τὴν διαθήκην τὴν
ἡμέραν...τὴν νύκτα, AQ. τῆς ἡμέρας...τῆς νυκτός), yet the passage
as a whole is a singularly clear and unaffected rendering. His
chief defect does not reveal itself in this context; it is a habit
of transliterating Hebrew words which could have presented no
difficulty to a person moderately acquainted with both lan-
guages. Field gives a list of 90 words which are treated by
Theodotion in this way without any apparent cause’. When
among these we find such a word as ON (which is represented
by 7A in Mal. ii. 11), we are compelled to absolve him from
the charge of incompetence, for, as has been pertinently asked,
how could a man who was unacquainted with so ordinary a
word or with its Greek equivalent have produced a version at
all? Probably an explanation should be sought in the cautious
and conservative temperament of this translator®. Field’s judge-
ment is here sounder than Montfaucon’s; Theodotion is not to
be pronounced ixdoctior, or indiligentior, but only ‘“‘scrupulosior
quam operis sui instituto fortasse conveniret®.”

9. The relation of the two extant Greek versions of Daniel
is a perplexing problem which calls for further consideration.
In his lost Stromata Origen, it appears’, announced his intention
of using Theodotion’s version of Daniel; and an examination
of Origen’s extant works shews that his citations of Daniel
‘“‘asree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now
current®.” The action of Origen in this matter was generally
endorsed by the Church, as we learn from Jerome (fragf. zm
Dan.: “‘Danielem prophetam iuxta Lxx. interpretes ecclesiae

Op. cit. p. xl. sq.

1

2 D.C. B. art. Hexapla (iii. p. 22). Cf. 2b. iv. p. 978.

3 Thus in Mal. Δ. c. he was perhaps unwilling to use θεός in connexion
with the phrase D2 by.

4 Jerome on Dan. iv.: “ Origenes in nono Stromatum volumine asserit
se quae sequuntur ab hoc loco in propheta Daniele non iuxta LXX. inter-
pretes...sed iuxta Theodotionis editionem disserere.”

5 Dr Gwynn in D. C. Δ. (iv. p. 974):

Later Greek Versions. 47

non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione”; cf. c. ARufin. 11:
33). Jerome did not know how this happened, but his
own words supply a sufficient explanation: “hoc unum
affirmare possum quod multum a veritate discordet et recto
iudicio repudiata sit.” So universal was the rejection of the
LXx. version of Daniel that, though Origen loyally gave it a
place in his Hexapla, only one Greek copy has survived’,
Theodotion’s version having been substituted in all other
extant Greek MSS. of Daniel.

But the use of Theodotion’s Daniel in preference to the
version which was attributed to the Lxx. did not begin with
Origen. Clement of Alexandria (as edited) uses Theodotion,
with a sprinkling of Lxx. readings, in the few places where
he quotes Daniel (aed. 11. 8, iil. 3, strom. i. 4, 21). In North
Africa both versions seem to have influenced the Latin text
of Daniel. The subject has been carefully investigated by Mr
F. C. Burkitt®, who shews that Tertullian used ‘‘a form of the
Lxx. differing slightly from Origen’s edition,” whilst Cyprian
quotes from a mixed text, in which Theodotion sometimes pre-
dominates. Irenaeus, notwithstanding his reverence for the Lxx.
and distrust of the later versions, cites Daniel after Theodotion’s
version®. Further, Theodotion’s Daniel appears to be used by
writers anterior to the date usually assigned to this translator.
Thus Hermas (vs. iv. 2, 4) has a clear reference to Theo-
dotion’s rendering of Dan. vi. 22*. Justin (d¢a/. 31) gives a
long extract from Dan. vil. in which characteristic readings
from the two versions occur in almost equal proportions’.
Clement of Rome (1 Cor. 34) cites a part of the same context,

1 The Chigi MS. known as Cod. 87 (H. P. 88); see Ὁ. 7. 7722 Greek,
iii. pp. vi., xii., and cf. the subscription printed 20. p. 574.

* Old Latin and Itala, p. 18 ff.

3 An exception in i. 19. 2 (Dan. xii. g f.) is due to a Marcosian source.

4 See Salmon, /ztr. to the NV. 7.’ p. 639.

> On the trustworthiness of Justin’s text here see Burkitt, of. cz#. p. 25 τ.
(against Hatch, Zssays, p. 190).

48 Later Greek Versions.

with a Theodotionic reading (ἐλειτούργουν, LXX. ἐθεράπευον).
Barnabas (ef. iv. 5) also refers to Dan. vii., and, though his
citation is too loose to be pressed, the words ἐξαναστήσονται
ὄπισθεν αὐτῶν are more likely to be a reminiscence of ὀπίσω
αὐτῶν ἀναστήσεται (Th.) than of pera τούτους στήσεται (LXX.).
The Greek version of Baruch (i. 15—18, 11. 11—19) un-
doubtedly supports Theodotion against the Lxx. Still more
remarkable is the appearance of Theodotionic renderings in the
New Testament. A writer so faithful to the Lxx. as the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his only reference to Daniel
(Heb. xi. 33 = Dan. vi. 23) agrees with Theodotion against the
Chigi version’. The Apocalypse, which makes frequent use of
Daniel, supports Theodotion on the whole; cf. Apoc. ix. 20
(Dan. v. 23), x. 6 (Dan. xil. 7), xil. 7 (Dan. x. 20), xii. 7 (Dan.
vill. 21), xix. 6 (Dan. x. 6), xx. 4 (Dan. vii. 9), xx. tr (Dan. ii.
35). Even in the Synoptic Gospels Theodotion’s rendering
in Dan. vil. 13 (μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν) occurs as well as the Lxx.
ἐπὶ τῶν v.; comp. Mc. xiv. 62 with Mt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64%

From these premisses the inference has been drawn that
there were two pre-Christian versions of Daniel, both passing
as ‘Lxx.’, one of which is preserved in the Chigi MS., whilst
the other formed the basis of Theodotion’s revision*. It has
been urged by Dr Gwynn with much acuteness that the two
Septuagintal Books of Esdras offer an analogy to the two
versions of Daniel, and the appearance of the phrase ἀπηρείσατο
αὐτὰ ἐν TO εἰδωλείῳ αὐτοῦ in τ Esdr. 11. 9 and Dan. i. 2 (Lxx.)

1 Heb. Δ c. ἔφραξαν στόματα λεόντων (Dan. Th., ἐνέφραξεν τὰ στόματα
τῶν λεόντων : LXX., σέσωκέ με ἀπὸ τῶν λεόντων).

2 The references are from Dr Salmon’s 7727. p. 548 f. Headds: “1
actually find in the Apocalypse no clear evidence that St John had ever
seen the so-called LXX. version.”’

3 The N. T. occasionally inclines to Theodotion in citations which are
not from Daniel; cf. Jo. xix. 37 (Zech. xii. 10), 1 Cor. xv. 54 (Is. xxv. 8);
see Schiirer’, iii. p. 324, ‘‘entweder Th. selbst ist alter als die Apostel, oder
es hat einen ‘Th.’ vor Th. gegeben.”

4 D.C. 8. art. Theodotion iv. p. 970 ff. Dr Salmon (Zztr. p. 547) is
disposed to accept this view.

Later Greek Versions. AQ

has been regarded as an indication that the Greek Esdras and
the Chigi Daniel were the work of the same translator’. An
obvious objection to the hypothesis of two Septuagintal or
Alexandrian versions is the entire disappearance of the version
which was used ex hypothest not only by the authors of the
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, but by Theodotion
and other writers of the second century. But Theodotion’s
revision of Daniel may have differed so little from the stricter
Alexandrian version as to have taken its place without remark?.

to, SyMMacHus. Of this translator Irenaeus says nothing,
and it has been inferred, perhaps too hastily, that he was
unknown to the Bishop of Lyons, and of later date. Origen
knew and used Symmachus, and had received a copy of his
commentary on St Matthew from a wealthy Christian woman
named Juliana, to whom it had been given by the author.
According to Eusebius, Symmachus was an Ebionite, and this
is confirmed by Jerome; a less probable tradition in Epiphanius
represents him as a Samaritan who had become a convert to
Judaism’.

Eus. ΚΓ £. vi. 17 τῶν ye μὴν ἑρμηνευτῶν αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων ἰστέον
βιωναῖον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι... «καὶ ὑπομνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμά-
χου εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται ἐ εν οἷς δοκεῖ πρὸς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἀποτειν ὁ-
μενος εὐαγγέλιον τὴν δεδηλωμένην αἵρεσιν κρατύνειν. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ
᾿Ωριγένης μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων εἰς τὰς γραφὰς ἑρμηνειῶν τοῦ Συμμάχου
σημαίνει παρὰ Ἰουλιανῆς τινος εἰληφέναι, ἣν καί φησι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
Συμμάχου τὰς βίβλους διαδέξασθαι. Hieron. de virr. tll. 54
*“Theodotionis Hebionaei et Symmachi eiusdem dogmatis” (cf.
in Hab. iii. 13) ; prac. 2722 Job: ‘‘Symmachus et Theodotion
Iudaizantes haeretici.” Epiph. de mens. e¢ pond. 15 ἐν τοῖς τοῦ
Σευήρου χρόνοις Σύμμαχός τις Σαμαρείτης τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς σοφῶν μὴ

τιμηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ οἰκείου ἔθνους... “προσηλυτεύει καὶ περιτέμνεται
, ’, ἘΝ
δευτέραν περιτομήν..«οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ Σύμμαχος πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν

ae, Ὁ ἘΠ τν 0: 977 n.; ci. Hastings’ 2. Z.,.1. p.,761,

2 On the whole question of the date of Ἐπ τῶ see Schiirer,
G. 7. V.? iii. 323 f., where the literature of the subject is given.

3 The name DIDDD occurs in the Talmud as that of a disciple of
R. Meir, who flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the
third century. Geiger desires to identify our translator with this Sym-
machus; see Field, prolegg. ad Hex. p. xxix.

SS. 4

50 Later Greek Versions.

mapa Zapapeiras ἑρμηνειῶν éppnvevoas τὴν τρίτην ἐξέδωκεν
ἐρμηνειαν.

That Symmachus, even if of Jewish or Samaritan birth,
became an Ebionite leader is scarcely doubtful, since an
Ebionitic commentary on St Matthew bearing his name was
still extant in the fourth century’; the Symmachians, an Ebionite
sect probably named after him, are mentioned by Ambrosiaster
(comm.in Gal., prolegg.) and Augustine (¢. Faust. xix. 4, ¢. Crescon.
i. 36). His floruit is open to some question. Dr Gwynn has
shewn’ that Epiphanius, who makes Theodotion follow Sym-
machus, probably placed Symmachus in the reign of Verus,
i.e. Marcus Aurelius. Now in the Astoria Lausiaca, c. 147,
Palladius says that Juliana sheltered Origen during a persecution,
i.e. probably during the persecution of the Emperor Maximius
(A.D. 238—241). If this was so, the literary activity of
Symmachus must have belonged, at the earliest, to the last
years of M. Aurelius, and it may be questioned whether
Epiphanius has not inverted the order of the two translators,
i.e. whether Theodotion ought not to be placed under M.
Aurelius and Symmachus under Commodus (a.D. 180—192)*.
The version of Symmachus was in the hands of Origen when
he wrote his earliest commentaries, 1.6. about Α.Ὁ. 228°; but
the interval is long enough to admit of its having reached
Alexandria.

11. The aim of Symmachus, as Jerome perceived, was
to express the sense of his Hebrew text rather than to attempt

1 Euseb. 7. ¢.

2 Philastrius, who represents the Symmachzani as holding other views,
says (c. 145): ‘‘sunt haeretici alii qui Theodotionis et Symmachi itidem
interpretationem diverso modo expositam sequuntur.” See Harnack, Gesch.
a. dichr, Tiit., ΤῊ i. Pp. 212.

3D. C. B. iv. p. 971 ff. Σευήρου in de pond. et mens. 16 is on this
hypothesis a corruption of Ovjpov. Cf. Lagarde’s Symmcta, ii. p. 168.

4 The Gospel of Peter, which cannot be much later than A.D. 170, and
may be fifteen or twenty years earlier, shews some verbal coincidences with
Symmachus (Ashmim fragment, pp. xxxiv. 18, 20), but they are not
decisive. ° Cf. D. C. B. iv. p. 103.

Later Greek Versions. 51

a verbal rendering: ‘‘non solet verborum κακοζηλίαν sed intel-
legentiae ordinem sequi” (zz Am. 111. 11). While Aquila
endeavoured ‘‘verbum de verbo exprimere,” Symmachus made
it his business “‘sensum potius sequi” (praef. in Chron. Eus., cf.
praef. in Job). Epiphanius, who believed Symmachus to have
been a Samaritan proselyte to Judaism, jumped to the con-
clusion that his purpose was polemical (πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν
Tapa Σαμαρείταις ἑρμηνειῶν ἑρμηνεύσας). But if Symmachus
had any antagonist in view, it was probably the literalism and
violation of the Greek idiom which made the work of Aquila
unacceptable to non-Jewish readers. So far as we can judge
from the fragments of his version which survive in Hexaplaric
MSS., he wrote with Aquila’s version before him, and in his
efforts to recast it made free use of both the Lxx. and Theo-
dotion. The following extracts will serve to illustrate this view
of his relation to his predecessors.

MALACHI II. 131.

LXX: AQ.
καὶ ταῦτα ἃ ἐμίσουν καὶ τοῦτο δεύτερον
ἐποιεῖτε: ἐκαλύπτετε ἐποιεῖτε" ἐκαλύπτετε
δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσια- δακρύῳ τὸ θυσια-
στήριον Κυρίου καὶ στήριον
κλαυθμῷ καὶ στεναγμῷ κλαυθμῷ καὶ οἰμωγῇ,
ἐκ κόπων. ἔτι ἄξιον ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι
ἐπιβλέψαι εἰς θυσίαν νεῦσαι πρὸς τὸ δῶρον
ἢ λαβεῖν δεκτὸν ἐκ καὶ λαβεῖν εὐδοκίαν
τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν; ἀπὸ χειρὸς ὑμῶν.

‘PH. SYMM.
καὶ τοῦτο δεύτερον καὶ ταῦτα δεύτερον
ἐποιήσατε: ἐκαλύπτετε ἐποιεῖτε, καλύπτοντες
δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσια- ἐν δάκρυσιν τὸ θυσια-
στήριον, στήριον,
κλαίοντες καὶ στένοντες, κλαίοντες καὶ ,οἰμώσσοντες,
ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι
προσεγγίζοντα τὸ ὁλοκαύτωμα νεύοντα πρὸς τὸ δῶρον
καὶ λαβεῖν τέλειον καὶ δέξασθαι τὸ εὐδοκημένον
ἐκ χειρῶν ὑμῶν. ἀπὸ χειρὸς ὑμῶν.

1 The Taga renderings are from Cod. 86 (Cod. Barberinus) :
Field, Hexafia, ii. p. 1033.

4—2

52 Later Greek Versions.

But it must not be supposed that Symmachus is a mere
reviser of earlier versions, or that he follows the lead of Aquila
as Theodotion follows the Lxx. Again and again he goes his
own way in absolute independence of earlier versions, and
sometimes at least, it must be confessed, of the original. ‘This
is due partly to his desire to produce a good Greek rendering,
more or less after the current literary style; partly, as it seems,
to dogmatic reasons. The following may serve as specimens
of the Greek style of Symmachus when he breaks loose from
the influence of his predecessors: Gen. xvill. 25 ὃ πάντα
ἄνθρωπον ἀπαιτῶν δικαιοπραγεῖν, ἀκρίτως μὴ ποιήσῃς τοῦτο; Job
XXV1. 14 τί δὲ ψιθύρισμα τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ ἀκούσομεν, ὅπου βροντὴν
δυναστείας αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς ἐννοήσει; Ps. xlill. 16 δ ὅλης ἡμέρας
ἡ ἀσχημόνησίς μου ἄντικρύς μου, καὶ ὃ καταισχυμμὸς τοῦ προσώπου
μου καλύπτει με. Ps. Ixvill. 3 ἐβαπτίσθην εἰς ἀπεράντους καταδύσεις,
καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν στάσις: εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὰ βάθη τῶν ὑδάτων, καὶ
ῥεῖθρον ἐπέκλυσέν με. Eccl. iv. 9 εἰσὶν ἀμείνους δύο ἑνός: ἔχουσιν
γὰρ κέρδος ἀγαθόν. Isa. xxix. 4 ὑπὸ γῆν ἐδαφισθήσεται ἡ λαλιά
σου, καὶ ἔσται ὡς ἐγγαστρίμυθος ἡ φωνή σου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς
ἡ λαλιά σου ῥοίσεται.

It cannot be said that these renderings approach to excel-
lence, but a comparison with the corresponding Lxx. will shew
that Symmachus has at least attempted to set himself free from
the trammels of the Hebrew idiom and to clothe the thoughts
of the Old Testament in the richer drapery of the Greek
‘tongue. It is his custom to use compounds to represent ideas
which in Hebrew can be expressed only by two or more words

(e.g. pwns, Symm. ἀναιτίως, MYA {!¥, Symm. ὀφθαλμοφανῶς,

32 WIND, Symm. axpoywviatos); he converts into a participle
the first of two finite verbs connected by a copula (Exod. v. 7
ἀπερχόμενοι καλαμάσθωσαν, 4 Regn. i. 2 σφαλέντες ἔπεσον) ; he
has at his command a large supply of Greek particles (e.g.
he renders δ by apa, ὄντως. tows, δι᾿ ὅλου, μόνον, οὕτως, ἀλλ᾽

Later Greek [767 510715, 53

ὅμως). More interesting and important is the tendency which
Symmachus manifests to soften the anthropomorphic expres-
sions of the Old Testament; e.g. Gen. 1. 27, ἔκτισεν. 6 θεὸς
τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐν εἰκόνι διαφόρῳ" ὄρθιον ὃ θεὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτόν.
Exod. xxiv. 10, εἶδον ὁράματι τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ. Jud. ix.
13 τὸν οἶνον... τὴν εὐφροσύνην τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Ps. xhil. 24
ἵνα τί ὡς ὑπνῶν εἶ, Δέσποτα; In these and other instances Sym-
-machus seems to shew ἃ knowledge of current Jewish exegesis*
which agrees with the story of his Jewish origin or training.

LITERATURE. On Aquila the student may consult R. Anger
de Onkelo Chaldaico, 1845; art. in D. C. B. (W. J. Dickson);
M. Friedmann, Oxkelos u. Akylas, 1896; Lagarde, Clementina,
p. 12 ἢ; Krauss, Akylas der Proselyt (Festschrift), 1896; F. Ὁ.
Burkitt, Fragments of Aguzla, 1897; C. Taylor, Sayengs of the
Sewish "Fathers, 1697, (p>, Vill.) = ΞΟΠ τοι απ θ᾽ 517,1. On. Sym-
machus, C. H. ‘Thieme, pro puritate Symmachi AtUSSOrt. 1755
art. in D.C. Ὁ. (J. Gwynn); «τον. Mercati, 2 eta dt Simmaco
interprete, 1892. On Theodotion, Credner, Bettrage, 11: p. 253 ff.;
απ πὶ aC...) .awynn)s G. Salmon; J777:,,10the LV. ΤΙ Ὁ.
538 ff.; Schiirer’, iii. p. 323 ff. Works which deal with the
ancient non-Septuagintal versions in general will be mentioned
inc. 111.,) under Literature of the Hexapla.}

12. OTHER ANCIENT GREEK VERSIONS. The researches
of Origen (A.D. 185—253) brought to light three anonymous
versions besides those of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus ;
from their relative position in the columns of his great col-
lection (see c. ili.) they are known as the Quznta (ε΄), Sexta (ς΄),
and Septima (ζ΄) respectively. The following are the chief
authorities :

Hus..7../. vi.. 16 τοσαύτη δὲ εἰσήγετο τῷ ᾿Ωριγένει τῶν θείων
λόγων ἀπηκριβωμένη ἐξέτασις ὡς...καί τινας ἑτέρας παρὰ τὰς καθη-
μαξευμένας. ἑρμην εἰας ΠΧ αὐ σας Ἔ ἐφευρεῖν, ἃς οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅθεν € ἔκ
τινων μυχῶν τὸν πάλαι λανθανούσας χρόνον εἰς φῶς ἀνιχνεύσας

1 For other examples see Field, Arolegg, p. xxvi. f.5 D. C. B. iv.
p: 10 f. '
* Reading, perhaps, πον ὈΟΥΔῚ odya; cf. Nestle, Margzaliez,

P40 Tl.
Eysee D.C. δ. iii. p. 20.

54 Later Greek Versions.

mponyayev...Tivos ἄρ᾽ εἶεν οὐκ εἰδὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον ἐπεσημήνατο
ὡς ἄρα τὴν μὲν εὕροι ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Ακτίῳ Νικοπόλει... ἐπὶ μιᾶς αὖθις
σεσημείωται ὡς ἐν Ἰεριχοῖ εὑρημένης ἐν πίθῳ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους
᾿Αντωνίνου τοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβήρου. Epiph. de mens. et pond. 18 μετὰ
τὸν διωγμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως Σευήρου ηὑρέθη ἡ πέμπτη ev πίθοις ἐν
Ἰεριχῷ κεκρυμμένη ἐν χρόνοις τοῦ υἱοῦ Σευήρου τοῦ ἐπικληθέντος
Καρακάλλου τε καὶ Τέτα...ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑβδόμῳ αὐτοῦ ἔτει ηὑρέθησαν καὶ
βίβλοι τῆς πέμπτης ἐκδόσεως ἐν πίθοις ἐν ᾿εριχῷ κεκρυμμένης μετὰ
ἄλλων βιβλίων βραικῶν καὶ Ἑλληνικῶν. τὸν δὲ Καράκαλλον
διαδέχεται ᾿Αντωνῖνος ἕτερος...μετὰ τοῦτον ἐβασίλευσεν ᾿Αλέξανδρος...
ἔτη ιγ΄ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν χρόνων τούτων ηὑρέθη ἕκτη ἔκδοσις, καὶ αὐτὴ
ἐν πίθοις κεκρυμμένη, ev Νικοπόλει τῇ πρὸς ᾿Ακτίῳ. Pseudo-Ath.
syn. SCY. SACY. 77 πέμπτη ἑρμηνεία ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν πίθοις εὑρεθεῖσα κε-
κρυμμένη ἐπὶ ᾿Αντωνίνου βασιλέως τοῦ Καρακάλλα ev “lepiy@ παρά
τινος τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις σπουδαίων. ἕκτη ἐρμηνεία ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν
πίθοις εὑρεθεῖσα, καὶ αὕτη κεκρυμμένη, ἐπὶ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μαμαίας
παιδὸς ἐν Νικοπόλει τῇ πρὸς Ακτιον ὑπὸ ᾿Ωριγένους γνωρίμων.
Hieron. de virr. zl. 54 “quintam et sextam et septimam edi-
tionem, quas etiam nos de eius bibliotheca habemus, miro labore
repperit et cum ceteris editionibus conparavit”: 272 ef. ad Tit.
“nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu
compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent quam ‘quin-
tam’ et ‘sextam’ et ‘septimam’ translationem vocant, auctori-
tatem sine nominibus interpretum consecutas.” Cf. zz Had. ii. 11,
ill. 13.

It appears from the statement of Eusebius’ that Origen found
the Quinta at Nicopolis near Actium, and that either the Sexta
or the Seftima was discovered in the reign of Caracalla (a.D.
211—217) at Jericho; while Epiphanius, reversing this order,
says that the Quznta was found at Jericho c. A.D. 217, and the
Sexta at Nicopolis under Severus Alexander (A.D. 222-—235)”.
According to Epiphanius both the Quzzfa and the Sex/a,
according to Eusebius the Sexfa only, lay buried in a πίθος
(dolium), one of the earthenware jars, pitched internally, and
partly sunk in the ground, in which the mustum was usually

stored while it underwent the process of fermentation®. Since

1 Jerome (fol. in Orig. exp. Cant.) confirms Eusebius.

2 The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila identifies Nicopolis with
Emmaus Nicopolis in Palestine.

3 D. of Gk and Lat. Ant. p. 1202. These πίθοι are said to have been
sometimes used instead of cistae or capsae for preserving books.

Later Greek Versions. 55

Origen was in Palestine a.D. 217, and in Greece A.D. 231, it is
natural to connect his discoveries with those years. How long
the versions had been buried cannot be determined, for it is
impossible to attach any importance to the vague statements
of Eusebius (τὸν πάλαι AavGavovcas χρόνον). The version found
at or near Nicopolis may have been a relic of the early Chris-
tianity of Epirus, to which there is an indirect allusion in the
Pastoral Epistles'. The Jericho find, on the other hand, was
very possibly a Palestinian work, deposited in the wine jar for
the sake of safety during the persecution of Septimius Severus,
who was in Palestine A.D. 202, and issued edicts against both
the Synagogue and the Church*. Of Seftima nothing is known,
beyond what Eusebius tells us, and the very sparing use of it
in the Psalter of some Hexaplaric MSS.; the few instances are

so dubious that Field was disposed to conclude either that \
this version never existed, or that all traces of it have been A
lost ®. | 2 Seal

There is no conclusive evidence to shew that any of these
versions covered the whole of the Old Testament*. Renderings
from Quin¢a are more or less abundant in 2 Kings, Job, Psalms,
Canticles, and the Minor Prophets, and a few traces have been
observed in the Pentateuch. Sex¢a is well represented in the
Psalms and in Canticles, and has left indications of its exist-
ence in Exodus, 1 Kings, and the Minor Prophets.

With regard to the literary character of Quznta and Sexfa,
the style of Quznta is characterised by Field as “ omnium
elegantissimus...cum optimis Graecis suae aetatis scriptoribus
comparandus.” Sexta also shews some command of Greek,

1 Lightfoot, Azd/ical Essays, Ὁ. 432.

2 Cf. Eus. 77. Z. vi. 7; Spartian. zz Sev. 17.

3 Prolegg. ad Hexapla, p.xl\vi. Ps.-Athanasius strangely calls Lucian the
seventh version: ἑβδόμη πάλιν καὶ τελευταία ἑρμηνεία ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Λουκιανοῦ.

* According to Harnack-Preuschen (i. p. 340) the opposite is implied
by Eusebius’ use of ἐναλλαττούσας in reference to these versions: ‘‘d. ἢ.
die eine war nur fiir diese, die andere nur fiir jene Biicher vorhanden.”

56 Later Greek Versions.

but is said to be disposed to paraphrase; Field, while he
regards that charge as on the whole ‘not proven,’ cites a
remarkable example of the tendency from Ps. xxxvi. 35, which
ς΄ renders, Εἶδον ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἀναιδῇ ἀντιποιούμενον ἐν σκληρότητι
καὶ λέγοντα Hipi ὡς αὐτόχθων περιπατῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Jerome’
attributes both versions to ‘ Jewish translators,’ but the Chris-
tian origin of Sexfa betrays itself’ at Hab. ili. 13 ἐξῆλθες τοῦ
σῶσαι τὸν λαόν σου διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν χριστόν Gov’.

The Greek fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries quotes
non-Septuagintal renderings from an interpreter who is styled
ὁ "EBpaios. Ὃ Σύρος is also cited, frequently as agreeing with
ὁ "EBpaios. Nothing is known of these translators (if such they
were), but an elaborate discussion of all the facts may be seen
in Field*.

13. The ‘Grarcus VENEtTUS. This is a version of the
Pentateuch, together with the books of Ruth, Proverbs, Can-
ticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Daniel, preserved in
St Mark’s Library at Venice in a single MS. of cent. xiv.—xv.
(cod. Gr. vii.)®. It was first given to the world by de Villoison
(Strassburg, 1784) and (Ὁ. F. Ammon (Erlangen, 1790—1);
a new edition with valuable prolegomena by O. von Gebhardt
appeared at Leipzig in 1875°. This translation has been .
made directly from the M. T., but the author appears to have
occasionally availed himself of earlier Greek versions (LXx.,

1 adv. Rujin.

2 «‘Prodens manifestissime sacramentum,”’ as Jerome himself remarks.
No doubt the primary reference is to Joshua (Field), but the purport of the
gloss is unmistakable.

3 leg, fors. Ἰησοῦ τοῦ χριστοῦ σου.

4 Prolegg. pp. Ixxv.—lxxxii. See also Lagarde, Ueber den Hebraer
Ephraims von Edessa. On τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν see Field, p. lxxii. ff, and
Nestle, Urtext, p. 206.

5 See Eichhorn, p. 421 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, p. 122 f.

6 Graecus Venetus Pentateuchi &c. versio Graeca. Ex unico biblioth.
S. Marci Venetae codice nunc primum uno volumine comprehensam atque

apparatu critico et philologico tnstructam edidit O. G. Praefatus est Fr.
Delitzsch.

Later Greek Versions. 57

Aq., Symm., Theod.)?. His chief guide however appears to
have been David Kimchi, whose interpretations are closely
followed®. That he was a Jew is clear from incidental render-
ings (e.g. in Exod. xxiii. 20 he translates D190 τὸν ὀντωτήν
sc. 717‘). From the fact of his having undertaken a Greek
version Gebhardt infers that he was a proselyte to Christianity,
but the argument may be used to support an opposite con-
clusion; as a Jew he may have been moved by a desire to
place before the dominant Orthodox Church a better render-
ing of the Old Testament than the Lxx. Delitzsch wishes
to identify him with Elissaeus, a Jewish scholar at the court
of Murad I., who flourished in the second half of the 14th
century.

The style of this remarkable version will be best illustrated
by a few specimens :

Gen. Vi. 2 i.

* τεθέανται γοῦν οἱ υἱεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τοῦ ἀνθρώ-
που ὅτι καλαὶ ἐτέλουν, καὶ ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν
ὧν εἵλοντο. 3 ἔφη τοίνυν ὃ ὀντωτής Οὐ κρινεῖ πνεῦμα τοὐμὸν
ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐς αἰῶνα, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔτι πέρ ἐστι σάρξ: τελέσουσι

> εὖ αἱ, ΕΘ \ Vix 5"
ὃ αι ἡμεραι AVTOV EKATOV και εικοσὶν €T7).

Prov. villi. 22 ff.

e2 5 \ 3 , / > ‘\ ε a ε Ν a μὴ 3 A
2 ὃ ὀντωτὴς ἐκτήσατό με ἀρχὴν ὁδοῦ οἱ, TPO τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ
> / 3 3 ? 2a ’ 3 \ ΄ > Ν λ ΄
ἐκ τότε. ἀπ᾿ αἰώνος κέχυμαι, απὸ κρατὸς, ato προλήμματος
A 3 -“ 4
γῆς. 7 ἐν οὐκ ἀβύσσοις πέπλασμαι, ἐν οὐ πηγαῖς δεδοξασμέ-
δά 25 Ν 4 > an ‘ a - Ou Ἢ
νων υδάτων'" πρὶν ὄρη ἐμπαγῆναι, πρὸ τῶν βουνῶν ὠδίνημαι
:5΄᾽.:) > 3 , a ὃ “ὃ Ν λὴ ΄ a
ἄχρις οὐκ ἐποίησε γῆν, διόδους Kal κεφαλὴν κόνεων τῆς
οἰκουμένης.
Daniel vii. 13.
Ay RE 4 3 ε / 3 / Saal ξὺ “-
ὁράων ἐκύρησα ἐν ὁράσεσιν εὐφρόνας, αὐτίκα τε ξὺν ταῖς
1 Gebhardt, p. lvii. ff.

2/8, p..\xii.
3’Ovrwrhs, ὀντουργός, οὐσιωτής are his usual renderings of 1111’.

58 Later Greek Versions.

΄ὔ A / ε eS > , 5» , »” 4
νεφέλαις τῶν πόλων ὡς υἱεὺς ἀνθρώπω ἀφικνούμενος ἔην, μέχρι
τε τῶ παλαιῶ ταῖς ἁμέραις ἔφθασε κἀνώπιον τήνω προσήγαγόν
ε 14 ’ 3 ἐδ 60 3 \ 4 Ν β λ / , Xr \
é. τήνῳ τ᾽ ἐδόθη ἀρχὰ τιμά τε Kat βασιλεία, πάντες τε λαοὶ
» Ν aA U ’ ε 5 /, ε 5 ‘ 7a
ἔθνεα καὶ γλῶτται τήνῳ λατρευσείοντι: ἃ ἀρχά εὗ ἀρχὰ αἰῶνος

Ὁ > / 7 ’ Ν᾿, > > ,
Os ov παρελευσείεται, a τε βασιλεία εὗ ἅπερ οὐκ οἰχησείεται.

The student will not fail to notice the translator’s desire to
render his text faithfully, and, on the other hand, his curiously
infelicitous attempt to reproduce it in Attic Greek ; and lastly
his use of the Doric dialect in Daniel to distinguish ‘the
Aramaic passages from the rest of the book. The result
reminds us of a schoolboy’s exercise, and the reader turns
from it with pleasure to the less ambitious diction of the Lxx.,
which, with its many imperfections, is at least the natural
outgrowth of historical surroundings.

Klostermann (Azalecta p. 30) mentions a MS. Psalter (Vat.
Gr. 343), bearing the date 22 April, 1450, which professes to be a
translation into the Greek of the fifteenth century (κατὰ τὴν νῦν
κοινὴν τῶν Τραικῶν φωνήν). A version of the Pentateuch into
modern Greek in Hebrew characters was printed at Constanti-
nople in 1547, forming the left-hand column of a Polyglott
(Hebrew, Chaldee, Spanish, Greek). It is described in Wolf, |
Bibliotheca Hebraea, 11. p. 355, and more fully in La version
lVeo-grecque du Pentateuche Polyglotte...remargues du Dr Lazare
Belléli (Paris, 1897). This Greek version has recently been
transliterated and published in a separate form with an intro-
duction and glossary by D. C. Hesseling (Leide, 1897).

ΘΈΑ ΤΕ

THE HEXAPLA, AND THE HEXAPLARIC AND OTHER
RECENSIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

1. THE century which produced the versions of Aquila,
Theodotion, and Symmachus saw also the birth of the great
Christian scholar who conceived the idea of using them for
the revision of the Alexandrian Greek Bible.

Origen was in his 17th year when his father suffered
martyrdom (A.D. 202)'; at eighteen he was already head of
the catechetical school of Alexandria®» The Old Testament
from the first engaged his attention, and, rightly judging that it
could not be fruitfully studied without a knowledge of the
original, he applied himself at once to the study of Hebrew.

Eus. H. ΕΞ. vi. 16 τοσαύτη δὲ εἰσήγετο τῷ ᾿Ωριγένει τῶν θείων
λόγων ἀπηκριβωμένη ἐξέτασις, ὡς καὶ τὴν ᾿Εβραίδα γλῶτταν ἐκμα-
θεῖν τάς τε παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐμφερομένας πρωτοτύπους αὐτοῖς
᾿Ἐβραίων στοιχείοις γραφὰς κτῆμα ἴδιον ποιήσασθαι. Hieron. de
virr. wl. 54 “quis autem ignorat quod tantum in scripturis
divinis habuerit studii ut etiam Hebraeam linguam contra
aetatis gentisque suae naturam edisceret??”

The feat was perhaps without precedent, in the third century,
among Christian scholars not of Jewish origin*; in one so

1.Eus. . £. vi. 2.

2 Hieron. de virr. zll. 54.

3 Cf. ep. ad Paulam.

4 See D. C. B. art. Hebrew Learning (11. p. 351 ff.).

60 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

young it seemed prodigious to a veteran like Jerome. These
studies, begun in Egypt, were continued in Palestine at Caesarea,
where Origen sought shelter during the storm of persecution
which burst upon Alexandria in the reign of Caracalla (A.D.
216—219). On his return to Egypt Origen’s period of literary
productivity began, and between the years 220 and 250 he
gave to the world a succession of commentaries, homilies, or
notes on nearly all the books of the Old Testament’. In the
course of these labours, perhaps from the moment that he
began to read the Old Testament in the original, he was
impressed with the importance of providing the Church with
materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of the
original. The method which he adopted is described by him-
self in his famous letter to Africanus (c. A.D. 240), and more
fully in his commentary on St Matthew (c. A.D. 245) *.

Orig. ad Afric. 5: καὶ ταῦτα δέ φημι οὐχὶ ὄκνῳ τοῦ ἐρευνᾷν καὶ
τὰς κατὰ Ιουδαίους γραφὰς καὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμετέρας ταῖς ἐκείνων
συγκρίνειν καὶ ὁρᾷν τὰς ἐν αὐταῖς διαφοράς, εἰ μὴ φορτικὸν γοῦν
εἰπεῖν, ἐπὶ πολὺ τοῦτο (ὅση. δύναμις) πεποιήκαμεν, γυμνάζοντες
αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκδόσεσι καὶ ταῖς διαφοραῖς αὐτῶν.
μετὰ τοῦ πόσως μᾶλλον ἀσκεῖν τὴν ἑρμην εἰαν τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα...
ἀσκοῦμεν δὲ μὴ ἀγνοεῖν καὶ τὰς παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις, ἵνα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους
διαλεγόμενοι μὴ προσφέρωμεν αὐτοῖς τὰ μὴ κείμενα ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγρά-
φοις αὐτῶν, καὶ ἵνα συγχρησώμεθα τοῖς φερομένοις παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις, εἰ
καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις οὐ κεῖται βιβλίοις. Lx Matt. xv. 14: τὴν μὲν
οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ
διδόντος, εὕρομεν. ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκ-
δόσεσιν: τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς o διὰ τὴν τῶν
ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν, τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν
ἐκδόσεων, τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν - καί τινα μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν
ἐν τῷ ᾿Εβραικῷ μὴ κείμενα, οὐ τολμῶντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν, τινὰ
δὲ μετ᾽ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν- ἵνα δῆλον ἢ ἦ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ
τοῖς ο᾽ ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ ᾿Ἑβραικῷ προσεθή-

τ

καμεν, καὶ ὁ μὲν βουλόμενος προῆται aura: ᾧ δὲ προσκόπτει τὸ

τοιοῦτον, ὃ βούλεται περὶ τῆς παραδοχῆς αὐτῶν ἢ μὴ ποιήσῃ.

* See D. C. B. art. Origenes, iv. p. 129 ff.
2 Cf. Bp Westcott in D. C. 8. iv. p. 99: “1 was during this period
(i.e. before A.D. 215) in all probability that he formed and partly executed
his plan of a comparative view of the LXxX. in connexion with the other
Greek versions.”

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 61

2. To attempt a new version was impracticable. It may
be doubted whether Origen possessed the requisite knowledge
of Hebrew ; it is certain that he would have regarded the task
as almost impious. Writing to Africanus he defends the
apocryphal additions to Daniel and other Septuagintal
departures from the Hebrew text on the ground that the
Alexandrian Bible had received the sanction of the Church,
and that to reject its testimony would be to revolutionise her
canon of the Old Testament, and to play into the hands of
her Jewish adversaries (ἀθετεῖν τὰ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις φερόμενα
ἀντίγραφα καὶ νομοθετῆσαι τῇ ἀδελφότητι ἀποθέσθαι μὲν τὰς παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς ἐπιφερομένας βίβλους, κολακεύειν δὲ ᾿Ιουδαίοις καὶ πείθειν
iva μεταδῶσιν ἡμῖν τῶν καθαρῶν). In this matter it was well, he
urged, to bear in mind the precept of Prov. xxii. 28, ‘‘ Remove
not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” The
same reasons prevented him from adopting any of the other
versions in place of the Septuagint. On the other hand,
Origen held that Christians must be taught frankly to recognise
the divergences between the Lxx. and the current Hebrew
text, and the superiority of Aquila and the other later versions,
in so far as they were more faithful to the original; it was
unfair to the Jew to quote against him passages from the Lxx.
which were wanting in his own Bible, and injurious to the
Church herself to withhold from her anything in the Hebrew
Bible which the Lxx. did not represent. Acting under these
convictions Origen’s first step was to collect all existing Greek
versions of the Old Testament. He then proceeded to
transcribe the versions in parallel columns, and to indicate in
the column devoted to the Septuagint the relation in which
the old Alexandrian version stood to the current Hebrew text.

3. The following specimen, taken from a fragment lately
discovered at Milan, will assist the reader to understand the
arrangement of the columns, and to realise the general appear-
ance of the Hexapla.

62 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recenstons.

HEBREW.

nyinbl
mip 205
τον ὃν
wy
Ὁ onds
ny) MOND
ΠΝ
ΓΥΥΣ
IND NYD)

12 by
xvi xd
yon
γι
p31
pn
aba
fey

Ps. xly. (xlvi.) 1—3°.

| HEB. TRANSLITERATED. |
| λαμανασσὴ |
[λ]αβνηκορ |

ad - αλμωθ
Katana λανου ἢ
μασε- ουοζ |
εἰρ |

βσαρωὼωθ
νεμσα pwd

aX + χεν"
A@- vipa
βααμιρ
ααρς
ουβαμωτ
αριμ
βλεβ

tapi

* In the MSS. Aavov |
appears in the third
column, where it has dis-
placed Aquila’s render-

ing.

εὑρέθη *

ἐν τῷ avTa

AQUILA.
τῷ νικοποιῷ"
τῶν υἱῶν Κύρε
> ἈΝ ’
ἐπὶ νεανιοτήτων
>
dopa.
[ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν (2)]
> ‘ ‘ /
ἐλπὶς Kal κράτος,
βοήθεια
ἐν θλίψεσιν
σφόδρα.

>

’
ἐπὶ τούτῳ

οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα

>

γῆν,

καὶ ἐν τῷ σφάλλεσθαι

a”
ὄρη
ἐν καρδίᾳ

θαλασσῶν.

* MS. εὑρέθης.

λλάσσεσθαι

1 Cf. Un palimpsesto Ambrosiano det Salmi Esapli (Gior. Mercati) in
Atti d. R. Accademia d. Scienze di Torino, 10 Apr. 1896; and E. Kloster-

mann, die Mailinder Fragmente der Hexapla.
the Hebrew column.

The MS. does not supply

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 63

SYMMACHUS.

ἐπινίκιος"
τῶν υἱῶν Κόρε
«ς ‘ ~ > ,
ὑπὲρ τῶν αἰωνίων
a7
ῳδη.
ς A €¢ £6
ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν
, ‘3 7
πεποίθησις καὶ ἰσχύς,
,
βοήθεια
ἐν θλίψεσιν

¢ , ,
εὑρισκόμενος σφόδρα.

διὰ τοῦτο
οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα
» ~ % r
ἐν TO* avyxeicbat
γὴν
καὶ κλίνεσθαι
”
ὄρη
ἐν καρδίᾳ

θαλασσῶν.

* MS. ταῖς.

Ps. xlv. (xlvi.) 1—3

LXX.
εἰς TO τέλος"
| ὑπὲρ τῶν υἱῶν Ἔ Kope
ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων
ψαλμός.

ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν t
κἀταφυγὴ καὶ δύναμις,
βοηθὸς
ἐν θλίψεσι

΄ ’ ε ΄ UG
Tals εὑρούσαις ἡμᾶς |

σφόδρα.
διὰ τοῦτο
οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα
> ~ Ps
ἐν τῷ ταράσσεσθαι

τὴν γὴν

καὶ μετατίθεσθαι

ΒΩ
ὄρη
ἐν καρδίᾳ

|
|
| θαλασσῶν.

Ι

* With interlinear
/ variant τοῖς υἱοῖς.

+ MS. τὰ manu ἡμῖν.
+ With interlinear

!

|
τ e , e ~

| variant εὑρεθήσεται ἡμῖν.

THEODOTION.

| ᾿ 4
τῷ νικοποιῷ *:

|

| ~ ~ ,

τοῖς υἱοῖς Kope

| ¢ ‘ ~ /

| ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων

| on™.

ς Retain

| ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν
καταφυγὴ καὶ δύναμις,
| βοηθὸς

] » ,

| ev θλίψεσιν

| εὑρέθη Ἰ σφόδρα.

]

διὰ τοῦτο
οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα
> ~ ΄
ἐν τῷ ταράσσεσθαι
τὴν γῆν
καὶ σαλεύεσθαι
»”
ὄρη

» ,
ev καρδίᾳ

θαλασσῶν.

* With marginal
variants, εἰς τὸ τέλος,
ψαλμός.

+ With interlinear
variant ταῖς εὑρούσαις

.] ἡμᾶς.
+ With interlinear

variant μετατίθεσθαι.

64 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions,

The process as a whole is minutely described by Eusebius
and Jerome, who had seen the work, and by Epiphanius,
whose account is still more explicit but less trustworthy.

mes. 27, 22. Vi, 163 ταύτας δὲ ἁπάσας [sc. τὰς ἐκδόσεις} ἐπὶ
ταὐτὸν συναγαγὼν διελών τε πρὸς κῶλον καὶ ἀντιπαραθεὶς ἀλλήλαις
μετὰ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς Ἑβραίων σημειώσεως τὰ τῶν λεγομένων Ἑξαπλῶν
ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα καταλέλοιπεν, ἰδίως τὴν ᾿Ακύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ
Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα τῇ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐ ἐν τοῖς Τετραπλοῖς ἐπι-
κατασκευάσας. Hieron. zz ep. ad Tit.: “omnes veteris legis libros
quos vir doctus Adamantius in Hexapla digesserat de Caesariensi
bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenticis emendare, in quibus
et ipsa Hebraea propriis sunt characteribus verba descripta et
Graecis literis tramite expressa vicino; Aquila etiam et Sym-
machus, LXX. quoque et Theodotio suam ordinem tenent ;
nonnulli vero libri et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu
compositi sunt tres alias editiones additas habuit.” Cf. his
letter to Sunnias and Fretela (ef. 106) and to Augustine (ef. 112)
and the preface to the Book of Chronicles, Epiph. de mens. et
pond. 7: Tas yap ἐξ ἑρμηνείας καὶ τῆν "EBpatxny γραφὴν fac
στοιχείοις Kal ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς ἐν σελίδιΐ μιᾷ συντεθεικώς, ἄλλην σελίδα
ἀντιπαράθετον δι “Ἑλληνικῶν μὲν γραμμάτων ᾿Εβραικῶν δὲ λέξεων
πρὸς κατάληψιν τῶν μὴ εἰδότων. ᾿Εβραικὰ στοιχεῖα. «Kal οὕτως τοῖς
λεγομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἑξαπλοῖς ἢ ἢ ὀκταπλοῖς τὰς μὲν δύο ᾿Εβραικὰς
σελίδας καὶ τὰς ἐξ τῶν ἑρμηνευτῶν ἐκ παραλλήλου ἀντιπαραθεὶς
μεγάλην ὠφέλειαν γνώσεως ἔδωκε τοῖς φιλοκάλοις. Ib. 19 τὰς δύο
᾿Εβραικὰς πρώτας κειμένας, μετὰ ταύτας δὲ τὴν τοῦ ᾿Ακύλα τεταγμένην,
μεθ᾽ ἣν καὶ τὴν τοῦ Συμμάχου, ἔπειτα τὴν τῶν οβ΄, μεθ᾽ ἃς ἡ τοῦ
Θεοδοτίωνος συντέτακται, καὶ ἑξῆς ἡ πέμπτη τε καὶ ἕκτη".

It will be seen that the specimen corroborates ancient
testimony in reference to the relative order of the four Greek
versions (Aq., Symm., Lxx., Theod.), and illustrates the method
of division into corresponding κῶλα which made comparison
easy. With regard to the order, it is clear that Origen did not
mean it to be chronological. Epiphanius seeks to account for
the position of the Lxx. in the fifth column by the not less

1 On σελίς, cf. Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin
Palacography, p. 58.

2 See also 26. 18 sq.; Hieron. Praecf. in Paral., and in ep. ad Tit., c. ili.

3 Used here loosely as=xéumara, the κῶλον being properly a line con-

sisting of a complete clause, and of 8—17 syllables: cf. E. M. Thompson,
Gk and Lat. Palacography, p. 81 f.; J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 23 f.

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 65

untenable hypothesis that Origen regarded the Lxx. as the
standard of accuracy (de mens. et pond. 19: Ὠριγένης πυθό-
μενος τὴν τῶν οβ΄ ἔκδοσιν ἀκριβῆ εἶναι μέσην ταύτην συνέθηκεν,
ὅπως τὰς ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἑρμηνείας διελέγχῃ). As we have
learned from Origen himself, the fact was the reverse; the
other Greek versions were intended to check and correct
the Lxx. But the remark, though futile in itself, suggests a
probable explanation. Aquila is placed next to the Hebrew
text because his translation is the most verbally exact, and
Symmachus and Theodotion follow Aquila and the Lxx.
respectively, because Symmachus on the whole is a revision of
Aquila, and Theodotion of the Lxx. As to the κῶλα, it was of
course necessary that the lines should be as short as possible
when six or more columns had to be presented on each open-
ing ; and it will be seen that in the Psalms at least not more
than two Hebrew words were included in a line, the corre-
sponding Greek words being at the most three or four. But
the claims of the sense are not neglected ; indeed it will appear
upon inspection that the method adopted serves in a remark-
able degree to accentuate the successive steps in the movement
of the thought.

4. Besides the Hexapla, Origen compiled a Tetrapla, ie. a
minor edition from which he omitted the first two columns con-
taining the Hebrew text in Hebrew and Greek characters; cf.
Kus. ἀφ ἰδίως τὴν ᾿Ακύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα
τῇ TOV ο΄ ἐν τοῖς τετραπλοῖς ἐπικατασκευάσας". Epiph. de mens. et
pond. 19 τετραπλᾶ γάρ εἰσι τὰ “Ἑλληνικὰ ὅταν αἱ τοῦ ᾿Ακύλου καὶ
Συμμάχου καὶ τῶν οβ΄ καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἑρμηνεῖαι συντεταγμέναι ὦσι.
The Tetrapla is occasionally mentioned along with the Hexa-
pla in scholia attached to MSS. of the txx. Thus in the

\"Emcxarackeud few is trsuper vel postea concinnare (Field, prolegg. p.
ΧΙ); cf. Dio Cass. l. 23 τὰ σκάφη κατεσκεύασε. ..καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ πύργους ἐπε-
κατεσκεύασε. Oeconomus (iv. 873), who regards the Tetrapla as the earlier
work, understands Eusebius to mean only that Origen added to the LXxx.
the three columns containing Α΄ Σ΄ Θ΄.

SS. 5

66 The πε μοι μέ and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

Syro-Hexaplaric version at the end of ced it is itaee that
the Greek codex on which the version was based had the note:
ἐγράφη ἐκ Tod ἑξαπλοῦ, ἐξ οὗ καὶ παρετέθη: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ καὶ
πρὸς τὸν τετραπλοῦν. Cod. Q still contains two similar
references to the Tetrapla (O. 7. in Gree, iil., p. viil., notes).
Mention is also made in the MSS. of an Octapla (cf. the Syro-
Hexaplar in Job v. 23, vi. 28, and the Hexaplaric MSS. of the
Psalter in Ps. Ixxv. 1, 1xxxvi. 5, Ixxxvill. 43, CXXXl. 4, CXXXV1. I)’.
The question arises whether the Octapla was a distinct work,
or merely another name for the Hexapla in books where the
columns were increased to eight by the addition of the Quinta
and Sexta. Eusebius appears to support the latter view, for
he speaks of the Hexapla of the Psalms as including the
Quinta and Sexta (ΠΩ. E. vi. 16 ἔν ye μὴν τοῖς ἑξαπλοῖς τῶν
Ψαλμῶν peta τὰς ἐπισήμους τέσσαρας ἐκδόσεις οὐ μόνον πέμπτην
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕκτην καὶ ἑβδόμην παραθεὶς ἑρμηνείαν). Epiphanius,
on the other hand, seems to limit the Hexapla to the six
columns (Δ ¢ τῶν τεσσάρων δὲ τούτων σελίδων Tats δυσὶ ταῖς
"EBpatxats συναφθεισῶν ἑξαπλᾶ καλεῖται" ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἡ πέμπτη
καὶ ἡ ἕκτη ἑρμηνεία συναφθῶσιν...ὀκταπλᾷ καλεῖται. But it
has been observed that when the scholia in Hexaplaric MSS.
mention the Octapla they are silent as to the Hexapla,
although the Octapla and the Tetrapla are mentioned together;
e.g. in Ps. Ixxxvi. 5 we find the following note: MHTHP CIWN’
τὸ Ρ κατὰ προσθήκην ἔκειτο εἰς THY τῶν ο΄ ἐν τῷ τετρασελίδῳ (the
Tetrapla), ἐν δὲ τῷ ὀκτασελίδῳ (the Octapla), MH TH CIWN, ἤγουν
δίχα tov p. The inference is that the name ‘Octapla’ some-
times superseded that of ‘ Hexapla’ in the Psalms, because in
the Psalter of the Hexapla there were two additional columns
which received the Quénta and Sexta. Similarly the term
‘Heptapla’ was occasionally used in reference to portions of the
Hexapla where a seventh column appeared, but not an eighth”.

1 Field, Hexapla, ii. ad loc. ; cf. Hieron. iw Psalmos (ed. Morin.), p. 66.
9 It occurs (e.g.) in the Hexaplaric Syriac at 2 Kings xvi. 2.

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 67

‘Pentapla’ is cited by J. Curterius from cod. Q at Isa. 111. 24,
but Field’s suspicion that Curterius had read his MS. incorrectly
is confirmed by a reference to the photograph, which exhibits
ἐν τῷ TETpaceAiow. Origen’s work, then, existed (as Eusebius
implies) in two forms: (1) the Hexapla, which contained, as a
rule, six columns,:but sometimes seven or eight, when it was
more accurately denominated the Heptapla or Octapla; and (2)
the Tetrapla, which contained only four columns answering to
the four great Greek versions, excluding the Hebrew and Greek-
Hebrew texts on the one hand, and the Quinta and Sexta on
the other.

5. The Hebrew text of the Hexapla was of course that
which was current among Origen’s Jewish teachers in the third
century, and which he took to be truly representative of the
original. Portions of the second column, which have been
preserved, are of interest as shewing the pronunciation of the
Hebrew consonants and the vocalisation which was then in use.
From the specimen already given it will be seen that 3= x,
D=k, and Ὁ, ¥, v=o, and that yn» are without equivalent’.
The divergences of the vocalisation from that which is repre-
sented by the pointing of the M. T. are more important; see
Dr Taylor’s remarks in D. C. Z. ii. ἢ. 15 f.

In regard ἴο Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the
minor Greek versions, Origen’s task was limited to transcription
under the conditions imposed by the plan of his work. But
the fifth column, which contained the Hexaplaric Lxx., called
for the full exercise of his critical powers. If his first idea had
been, as his own words almost suggest, merely to transcribe the
LXX. in its proper place, without making material alterations in
the text, a closer comparison of the Lxx. with the current
Hebrew text and the versions based upon it must soon have

1 Cf. the practice of Aquila (Burkitt, 7ragments ψ' the Books of Kings
acc. to Aquila, p. 14). :

[2

68 The sabi tad and the ae wc and other sisi

iavidiced him that ἀμὸ was iswpesarida bib: ies us suppose
that there lay before him an Alexandrian or Palestinian
MS., containing the ‘common’ text of the Lxx. (y κοινή, or
vulgata editio, as Jerome calls it), i.e. the text of the Greek
Bible as it was read by the Church of the third century. As the
transcription proceeded, it would be seen that every column of
the Greek contained clauses which were not in the Hebrew,
and omitted clauses which the Hebrew contained. Further, in
many places the order of the Greek would be found to depart
from that of the Hebrew, the divergence being sometimes
limited to a clause or a verse or two, but occasionally extend-
ing to several chapters. Lastly, in innumerable places the
Lxx. would be seen to yield a sense more or less at variance
with the current Hebrew, either through misapprehension on
the part of the translators or through a difference in the
underlying text. ‘These causes combined to render the co-
ordination of the Alexandrian Greek with the existing Hebrew
text a task of no ordinary difficulty, and the solution to which
Origen was led appeared to him to be little short of an in-
spiration (θεοῦ διδόντος εὕρομεν).

Origen began by assuming (1) the purity of the Hebrew
text, and (2) the corruption of the κοινή where it departed from
the Hebrew*. The problem before him was to restore the
LXX. to its original purity, 1.6. to the Hebraica veritas as he
understood it, and thus to put the Church in possession of an
adequate Greek version of the Old Testament without disturb-
ing its general allegiance to the time-honoured work of the
Alexandrian translators. Some of the elements in this complex
process were comparatively simple. (1) Differences of order
were met by transposition, the Greek order making way for the

1 Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret.

2 See Driver, Samzel, p. xlvi.: ‘‘he assumed that the original Septua-
gint was that which agreed most closely with the Hebrew text as he knew
it...a step in the wrong direction.”

The io id and the i occas and other Recensions. ΕΞ

ΕΝ In this manner whole sections yieided places in the
.ΧΧ. text of Exodus, 1 Kings, and Jeremiah; in Proverbs
only, for some reason not easy to determine, the two texts
were allowed to follow their respective courses, and the diver-
gence of the Greek order from the Hebrew was indicated by
certain marks? prefixed to the sticht of the Lxx. column.
(2) Corruptions in the κοινή, real or supposed, were tacitly
corrected in the Hexapla, whether from better MSS. of the
Lxx., or from the renderings of other translators, or, in the
case of proper names, bya simple adaptation of the Alexandrian
Greek form to that which was found in the current Hebrew’.
(3) The additions and omissions in the Lxx. presented greater
difficulty. Origen was unwilling to remove the former, for
they belonged to the version which the Church had sanctioned,
and which many Christians regarded as inspired Scripture; but
he was equally unwilling to leave them without some mark of
editorial disapprobation. Omissions were readily supplied from
one of the other versions, namely Aquila or Theodotion ; but
the new matter interpolated into the Lxx. needed to be carefully
distinguished from the genuine work of the Alexandrian trans-
lators*.

6. Here the genius of Origen found an ally in the system
of critical signs which had its origin among the older scholars
of Alexandria, dating almost from the century which produced
the earlier books of the Lxx. The ᾿Αριστάρχεια σήματα took
their name from the prince of Alexandrian grammarians,
Aristarchus, who flourished in the reign of Philopator (a.p.

1 A combination of the asterisk and obelus; see below, p. 71.

* E.g. at Exod. vi. τό, Γηρσών was substituted by Origen for Τεδσών.
Whether his practice in this respect was uniform has not ~ been definitely
seeertaines

᾿ Hieron. Praef. ad Chron. : “quod maioris audaciae est, in editione
LXX. Theodotionis editionem miscuit, asteriscis designans quae minus ante
fuerant, et virgulis quae ex superfluo videbantur apposita.”” The Book
of Job offered ‘the largest field for interpolation : a scholion in cod. 161
says, Ιὼβ στίχοι ax’ χωρὶς ἀστερίσκων, μετὰ δὲ τῶν ἀστερίσκων BS’.

70 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recenstons.

222—-205), and they appear to have been first employed in
connexion with his great edition of Homer’. Origen selected
two of these signs known as the obelus and the asterisk, and
adapted them to the use of his edition of the Septuagint. In
the Homeric poems, as edited by Aristarchus, the obelus marked
passages which the critic wished to censure, while the asterisk
was affixed to those which seemed to him to be worthy of
special attention ; cf. the azecdoton printed by Gardthausen: ὃ
δὲ ὀβελὸς πρὸς τὰ ἀθετούμενα ἐπὶ TOD ποιητοῦ ἤγουν νενοθευμένα ἢ
ὑποβεβλημένα" ὃ δὲ ἀστερίσκος...ὡς καλών εἰρημένων τῶν ἐπῶν.
Similarly, in connexion with Platonic dicta, Diogenes Laertius
(platon. 111.. 657) used the obelus πρὸς τὴν ἀθέτησιν and the
asterisk πρὸς τὴν συμφωνίαν τῶν δογμάτων. As employed by
Origen in the fifth column of the Hexapla, the obelus was
prefixed to words or lines which were wanting in the Hebrew,
and therefore, from Origen’s point of view, of doubtful
authority’, whilst the asterisk called attention to words or lines
wanting in the Lxx., but present in the Hebrew. The close of
the context to which the obelus or asterisk was intended to
apply was marked by another sign known as the mesodelus.
When the passage exceeded the length of a single line, the
asterisk or obelus was repeated at the beginning of each subse-
quent line until the metobelus was reached.

Epiph. ad mens. et pond. 2, ik ἢ ἀστερίσκος...σημαίνει τὸ
ἐμφερόμενον ῥῆμα, ἐν τῷ Ἐβραικῷ κεῖσθαι...οἱ δὲ οβ΄ ᾿ἑρμηνευταὶ
παρῆκαν καὶ οὐχ ἡρμήνευκαν.. ὀβελὸς δὲ.. παρετίθη.. ταῖς τῆς θείας
γραφῆς λέξεσιν ταῖς παρὰ τοῖς οβ΄ ἑρμηνευταῖς κειμέναις, παρὰ δὲ
τοῖς περὶ ᾿Ακύλαν καὶ Σύμμαχον μὴ ἐμφερομέναις. Schol. ap. Tisch.
not. ed. cod. Sin. Ῥ. γ6 ὅ ὅσοις οἱ ὀβελοὶ πρόσκεινται ῥητοῖς, οὗτοι οὐκ
ἔκειντο οὔτε παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς οὔτε ἐν τῷ βραικῷ,
ἀλλὰ παρὰ μόνοις τοῖς δι: καὶ ὅσοις οἱ ἀστερίσκοι πρόσκεινται ῥητοῖς,
οὗτοι ἐν μὲν τῷ ᾿Εβραικῷ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς ἐφέροντο, ἐν
δὲ τοῖς ο΄ οὐκέτι.

1 See a complete list of these in Gardthausen, Griech. Paliographie,
p- 288 f.

2 On an exceptional case in which he obelised words which stood in
the Hebrew text, see Cornill, Zzekiel, p. 386.

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions, 71

Occasionally Origen used asterisk and obelus together, as
Aristarchus had done, to denote that the order of the Greek was
at fault (avecd. ap. Gardthausen: ὁ δὲ ἀστερίσκος μετὰ ὀβελοῦ,
Ws ὄντα μὲν τὰ ἔπη τοῦ ποιητοῦ, μὴ καλώς δὲ κείμενα : schol. ap.
Tisch. wot. ed. Sin. 1.c. φέρονται μὲν παρὰ τοῖς ο΄, φέρονται δὲ ἐν
τῷ Ἑβραικῷ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἑρμηνευταῖς, τὴν θέσιν δὲ μόνην
παραλλάσσουσιν οἱ λοιποὶ καὶ τὸ “EBparxov παρὰ τοὺς ο΄- ὅθεν
ὠβέλισται ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ ἠστέρισται, ὡς παρὰ πᾶσι μὲν φερόμενα,
οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δὲ τόποις : also ap. mon. sacr. ined. il.
Pp. Xvli. τὰ δὲ ἡστερισμένα ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ ὠβελισμένα ῥητὰ... ὡς
παρὰ πᾶσι μὲν φερόμενα, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δὲ τόποις) The
Aristarchian (or as they are usually called by students of
‘the Old Testament, the Hexaplaric) signs are also used by
Origen when he attempts to place before the reader of his Lxx.
column an exact version of the Hebrew without displacing the
Lxx. rendering. Where the Lxx. and the current Hebrew are
hopelessly at issue, he occasionally gives two versions, that of
one of the later translators distinguished by an asterisk, and
that of the Lxx. under an obelus.

The form of the asterisk, obelus, and metobelus varies
slightly. The first consists of the letter x, usually surrounded
by four dots (*, the x@ περιεστιγμένον); the form + occurs but
seldom, and only, as it seems, in the Syro-Hexaplar. The
ὀβελός, ‘spit’ or ‘spear,’ is represented in Epiphanius by \, but
in the MSS. of the Lxx. a horizontal straight line (—)’ has
taken the place of the original form, with or without occupying
dot or dots (+ + +); the form + was known as a /emmniscus, and
the form + as a Aypolemniscus. Epiphanius indeed (of. céz., c. 8)
fancies that each dot represents a pair of translators, so that the
/emniscus means that the word or clause which the Lxx. adds
to the Hebrew had the support of two out of the thirty-six
pairs which composed the whole body, whilst the Zypolemniscus

1 This sometimes becomes a hook («).

72 The caine a and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

claims τὰ it the support of only one pair. This explanadneal it
is scarcely necessary to say, is as baseless as the fiction of the
cells on which, in the later Epiphanian form, it rests. Other
attempts to assign distinct values to the various forms of the
obelus have been shewn by Field to be untenable’. The
metobelus is usually represented by two dots arranged per-
pendicularly (:), like a colon; other forms are a sloping line
with a dot before it or on either side (/., :/.), and in the Syro-
Hexaplar and other Syriac versions a mallet (¥). The latter
form, as the least ambiguous, is used in Field’s great edition of
the Hexapla, and in the apparatus which is printed under the
text of the Lxx. version of Daniel in the Cambridge manual
Septuagint.

Certain other signs found in Hexaplaric MSS. are mentioned
in the following scholion (Εὐαγρίου cy., one of the σχύλια εἰς τὰς
παροιμίας printed in the (Votztia ed. cod. Sin., Ὁ. 76, from a
Patmos MS.; see Robinson, Philocalia, pp. xill., xvil. ff.) : εἰσὶν
ὅσα προτεταγμένον “ἔχουσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν Ce ges ᾿Ωριγένην ἐπι-
γεγραμμένον ἔχει τούτῳ τῷ μονοσυλλάβῳ, φ.. ὅσα δὲ περὶ διαφωνίας
ῥητῶν τινῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐδαφίῳ ἢ ἢ ἐκδόσεών ἐστιν σχόλια, ἅπερ καὶ
κάτω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, τῶν ἀντιβεβλη-
κότων τὸ βιβλίον ἐστίν: ὅσα δὲ ἀμφιβόλως ἔξω κείμενα ῥητὰ ἔξω
νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, διὰ τὰ σχόλια προσε-
τέθησαν κατ᾽ αὐτὰ τοῦ μεγάλου εἰρηκότος διδασκάλου, ἵ ἵνα μὴ δόξη κατὰ
κενοῦ τὸ σχόλιον φέρεσθαι, ἐν πολλοῖς “μὲν τῶν “ἀντιγράφων τῶν
ῥητῶν οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ μὴ οὕτως κειμένων ἢ μηδ᾽ ὅλως
φερομένων, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προστεθέντων.

The following extract from the great Hexaplaric MS. known
as G will enable the student, to whom the subject may be new, to
practise himself in the interpretation of the signs. He will find it
instructive to compare the extract with his Hebrew Bible on the
one hand and the text of Cod. B (printed in the Cambridge 1,ΧΧ.)
on the other’.

1 Prolegg. p. lix. sq.

2 The vertical bars denote, of course, the length of the lines of Cod. 6.
The lines of the LXx. column of the Hexapla, if we may judge by the
specimen (p. 62 f.), varied in length according to the sense.

The ἀὐὐώής and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. ὦ 3

Joshua xi. 1o—14 (Cod. neta

και ἐπεστρεψεν is ev | τω kaipw εκεινὼ «| κατελαβετο Χ' την
: αἀσωρ | και τον βασιλεα avrns | Χ' ἀπέκτεινεν εν ρομὶ Χ φαια:
nv δὲ ἀσωρ To προΐτερον ἀαρχουσα πασῶ | τῶν βασιλειων τουΐτων και
απεκτεινᾷ | παν ἐνπνεον Χ o : ev | αὐτὴ εν στοματι ξιῴους | και

εξωλεθρευσαν : | ---παντας : και ov κατελιίῴθη εν αὐτὴ ἐνπνεῖον Kat
THY ασωρ ενείπρῆσεν εν πύυρι και πα͵σας τας πόλεις των | βασιλειων “Χ'
τουτῶ : καὶ % παντας : τοὺς βασιΐλεις αὐτων ελαβεν ts | και

ἀνεῖλεν αὐτους | εν στοματι ξιῴφους κὶ εξωλεθρευσεν αὑυτους | ον
τροπον.συνεταξε | Μωσῆς o mas KU: adda | πασας τας πολεις Tas |
Kexopatiopevas | X αὐτων : οὐκ ever pn|oev Mr πλὴν & την: αἰσωρ
μονὴν - αὐτὴν : ἐνεπρῆσεν iS και πᾶτα Ta σκυλα αὐτῆς Χ' καΪ | X ra
KTNVN : ἐπρονομευΐσαν εαυτοις οἱ ὕϊοι HA | * κατα To ρημα KU o eve
* τείλατο τω W : avrous | Oe mavras eEwdeOpev|cev ev στοματι Erovs |
ews atwAecev autos | ov κατιλιπον ; αὐτῶ : | οὐδε ev evrveov * * *

7. The Hexapla was completed, as we have seen, by
A.D. 240 or 245; the Tetrapla, which was a copy of four
columns of the Hexapla, followed, perhaps during Origen’s
last years at Tyre’. A large part of the labour of tran-
scription may have been borne by the copyists who were in
constant attendance on the great scholar, but he was doubtless
his own διορθωτής, and the two Hebrew columns and the Lxx.
column of the Hexapla were probably written by his own
hand.

Eusebius in a well-known passage describes the costly and
laborious process by which Origen’s commentaries on Scripture
were given to the world: 4, Z. vi. 23 ταχυγράφοι γὰρ αὐτῷ πλείους
ἢ ἑπτὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν παρῆσαν ὑπαγορεύοντι, χρόνοις τεταγμένοις ἀλλή-
λους ἀμείβοντες, βιβλιογράφοι τε οὐχ ἥττους ἅμα καὶ κόραις ἐπὶ τὸ
καλλιγραφεῖν ἠσκημέναις" ὧν ἁπάντων τὴν δέουσαν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων
ἄφθονον περιουσίαν ὁ ᾿Αμβρόσιος παρεστήσατο. Two of these
classes of workers, the βιβλιογράφοι and καλλιγράφοι (cf. Gardt-
hausen, Gr. Palacographie, p. 297), must have found ample
employment in the preparation of the Hexapla. The material
used was possibly papyrus. Although there are extant fragments
of writing on vellum which may be attributed to the second
century, “there is every reason to suppose that to the end of the
third century papyrus held its own, at any rate in Egypt, as the

1 See the confused and inexact statement of Epiphanius, de mens. et
pond. 18.

74 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

material on which literary works were written” (Kenyon, Padazo-
graphy of Gk papyri, p. 113 f.; on the size of existing papyrus
rolls, see p. 16 ff.). This view receives some confirmation from
Jerome’s statement (ef. 141) that Acacius and Evagrius endea-
voured to replace with copies on parchment some of the books
in the library at Caesarea which were in a damaged condition
(“bibliothecam...ex parte corruptam...in membranis instaurare
conati sunt”)!. According to Tischendorf (frolegg. in cod. Frid.
Aug. § 1) cod. δὲ was written on skins of antelopes, each of
which supplied only two leaves of the MS. The Hexapla, if
copied in so costly a way, would have taxed the resources even of
Origen’s generous ἐργοδιώκτης.

It is difficult to conceive of a codex or series of codices so
gigantic as the Hexapla. Like the great Vatican MS., it would
have exhibited at each opening at least six columns, and in
certain books, like the Sinaitic MS., eight. Its bulk, even when
allowance has been made for the absence in it of the un-
canonical books, would have been nearly five times as great
as that of the Vatican or the Sinaitic Old Testament. The
Vatican MS. contains 759 leaves, of which 617 belong to the
Old Testament ; when complete, the O. T. must have occupied
650 leaves, more or less. From these data it may be
roughly calculated that the Hexapla, if written in the form
of a codex, would have filled 3250 leaves or 6500 pages; and
these figures are exclusive of the Quinta and Sexta, which
may have swelled the total considerably. Even the Tetrapla
would have exceeded 2000 leaves. So immense a work
must have been the despair of copyists, and it is improba-
ble that any attempt was made to reproduce either of the
editions as a whole. The originals, however, were long
preserved at Caesarea in Palestine, where they were de-
posited, perhaps by Origen himself, in the library of Pam-
philus. There they were studied by Jerome in the fourth
century (2 Psalmos comm. ed. Morin., p. 5 : “ἑξαπλοῦς Origenis
in Caesariensi bibliotheca relegens” ; 2d. p. 12 : “cum vetustum
Origenis hexaplum psalterium revolverem, quod ipsius manu

1 See Birt, das antike Buchwesen, pp. 100, 107 ff.

The edad and the ee and other Recensions. 75

fuerat emendatum”; zz ep. ad Tit.: “nobis curae fuit omnes
veteris legis libros quos v. d. Adamantius in Hexapla diges-
serat de Caesariensi bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenti-
cis emendare.” There also they were consulted by the writers
and owners of Biblical MSS.; compare the interesting note
attached by a hand of the seventh century to the book of
Esther in cod. 8: ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον
δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Παμφίλου: πρὸς δὲ τῷ
τέλει τοῦ αὐτοῦ παλαιοτάτου βιβλίου... ὑποσημείωσις τοῦ αὐτοῦ
μάρτυρος ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως: ΛλΛετελήμφθη kal λιορθώθη
πρὸς τὰ ἐξάπλὰ ᾿Ωριγενοῦο yr ἀὐτοῦ διορθωλένὰ (0. 7: zx
Greek, ii. p. 780); and the notes prefixed to Isaiah and Ezekiel
in Cod. Marchalianus (Q); the second of these notes claims
that the copy from which Ezekiel was transcribed bore the
subscription Ταὐτὰ MeTeEAH@OH ἀπὸ τῶν KATA τὰς ἐκλόσειο
EZATIAGN, KAl λιορθώθη ἀπὸ TON’ Opirenofc αὐτοῦ τετραπλῶν
ATINA Kal ayTOY χειρὶ Διόρθωτο Kal ἐοκολιογράφητο (2. iii. p.
vill.)*. The library of Pamphilus was in existence in the 6th
century, for Montfaucon (dzb0th. Coist. p. 262) quotes from
Corst. 2027, a MS. of that century, a colophon which runs:
ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Katoapia ἀντίγραφον τῆς
βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ. But
in 638 Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens, and from
that time the Library was heard of no more. Even if not
destroyed at the moment, it is probable that every vestige of
the collection perished during the vicissitudes through which
the town passed between the 7th century and the τί. Had
the Hexapla been buried in Egypt, she might have preserved
it in her sands; it can scarcely be hoped that the sea-washed
and storm-beaten ruins of Kaisariyeh cover a single leaf.

1 See also the note at the end of the Scholia on Proverbs printed i in the
Notitia l.c.: μετελήφθησαν ἀφ᾽ ὧν εὕρομεν, καὶ πάλιν αὐτὰ χειρὶ Πάμφιλος
καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώσαντο.

= Hpa"!, Gregory, p. 449, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 183 f.
> See G. A. Smith, Azst. Geogr. of Palestine, p. 143 f.

76 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions,

LITERATURE. Fragments of the Hexapla were printed by
Peter Morinus in his notes to the Roman edition of the Septua-
gint (1587). Separate collections have since been published by
J. Drusius (Vet. cuterpretum Graecorum.. fragmenta collecta...a
Fo. Drusio, Arnheim, 1622), Bernard Montfaucon (Ovigenis
Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Paris, 1713), and Ε΄. Field (Oxford,
1875), whose work has superseded all earlier attempts to recover
the Hexapla. A fuller list may be seen in Fabricius-Harles,
il. 701 ff. Materials for an enlarged edition of Field are
already beginning to accumulate; such may be found in Pitra,
Anatecta sacra, 111. (Venice, 1883), p. 551 ff.; E. Klostermann,
Analecta zur...Hexapla (Leipzig, 1895), ἃ. Morin, Azecdota
Maredsolana iii. 1 (Mareds., 1895; cf. Eaposttor, June 1895,
p. 424 ff.). Among helps to the study of the Hexapla, besides
the introductions already specified, the following may be men-
tioned: the Prolegomena in Field’s Hexafla, the art. Hexapla
in D.C. B. by Dr C. Taylor; the introduction to Dr Driver’s
Notes on Samuel (p. xii. ff.), and Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. d.
altchristt. Litt. i. p. 339 ff. For the literature of the Syro-
Hexaplaric version see c. iv.

8. If the Hexapla as a whole was too vast to be copied’,
and copies even of particular books were rarely if ever at-
tempted, yet there was nothing to forbid the separate publi-
cation of the fifth column, which contained the revised
Septuagint. This idea presented itself to Pamphilus and his
friend Eusebius, and the result was the wide circulation in
Palestine during the fourth century of the Hexaplaric Lxx.,
detached from the Hebrew text and the other Greek versions,
but retaining, more or less exactly, the corrections and addi-
tions adopted by Origen with the accompanying Hexaplaric
signs. ‘‘Provinciae Palestinae,” writes Jerome in his preface
to Chronicles, ‘codices legunt quos ab Origene elaboratos
Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt.” Elsewhere? he warns
his correspondents “‘aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et
Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores κοινήν
(id est communem) appellant atque vulgatam..., aliam Lxx.
interpretum quae in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur..et Ierosoly-

1 Hieron. praef. in Fos.: “ et sumptu et labore maximo indigent.”
* Ep. ad Sunn. et Fret. 2.

The TES and the 4. ee wc and other LETS, 77

mae atque in orientis ἘΠῚ tenn The Bee ic
text receives his unhesitating support: “ea autem quae
habetur in é€a7rAots...ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incor-
rupta et immaculata Lxx. interpretum translatio reservatur!.”
This edition, sometimes described as τὸ Εὐσεβίου or τὸ TaXa-
στιναῖον, or simply ’Op[cyevys], is mentioned with great respect
in the scholia of MSS. which do not on the whole follow its
text. Specimens of such notes have already been given ; they
usually quote the words in which Pamphilus describes the
part borne by himself and his friends respectively in the pro-
duction of the book. Thus a note quoted by an early hand in
cod. δὲ at the end of 2 Esdras says, ᾿Αντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν,
Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα. The subscription to Esther ends ’Avtw-
vivos ὁμολογητὴς ἀντέβαλεν, Πάμφιλος διορθώσατο [τὸ] τεῦχος ἐν
τῇ φυλακῇ. The scholion prefixed to Ezekiel in Q introduces
the name of Eusebius, assigning him another function: Εὐσέ.
Bios ἐγὼ τὰ σχόλια παρέθηκα' Ἰ]άμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώ-
σαντο. [Ιῃ 115 subscription to 1 Kings the Syro-Hexaplar quotes
a note which runs: Εὐσέβιος διορθωσάμην ὡς ἀκριβῶς ἠδυνάμην.
It would seem as though the work of comparing the copy with
the original was committed to the otherwise unknown Anto-
ninus, whilst the more responsible task of making corrections
was reserved for Pamphilus and Eusebius’. Part of the work
at least was done while Pamphilus lay in prison, i.e. between
A.D. 307 and 309, but it was probably continued and com-
pleted by Eusebius after the martyr’s death.

The separate publication of the Hexaplaric Lxx. was
undertaken in absolute good faith; Pamphilus and Eusebius
believed (as did even Jerome nearly a century afterwards) that
Origen had succeeded in restoring the old Greek version to its
primitive purity, and they were moved by the desire to com-
municate this treasure to the whole Church. It was impos-

1 Adv. Rujin. ii. 27.
2 On ἀντιβάλλειν and διορθοῦσθαι, see Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 55.

78 The Hexapla,and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

sible for them to foresee that the actual result of their labours
would be to create a recension of the Lxx. which was a
mischievous mixture of the Alexandrian version with the
versions of Aquila and Theodotion. The Hexaplaric signs,
intended for the use of scholars, lost their meaning when
copied into a text which was no longer confronted with the
Hebrew or the later versions based upon it; and there was a
natural tendency on the part of scribes to omit them, when
their purpose was no longer manifest.

When we consider that the Hexaplaric Septuagint claimed
to be the work of Origen, and was issued under the authority of
the martyr Pamphilus and the yet greater Bishop of Caesarea,
we can but wonder that its circulation was generally limited to
Palestine’. Not one of our uncial Bibles gives the Hexaplaric
text as a whole, and it is presented in a relatively pure form
by very few MSS., the uncials G and M, which contain only the
Pentateuch and some of the historical books, and the cursives
86 and 88 (Holmes and Parsons), which contain the Pro-
phets. But a considerable number of so-called Hexaplaric
codices exist, from which it is possible to collect fragments
not only of the fifth column, but of all the Greek columns of
the Hexapla; and a still larger number of our MSS. offer a
mixed text in which the influence of the Hexaplaric Lxx., or
of the edition published by Pamphilus and Eusebius, has been
more or less extensively at work*. The problems presented by
this and other causes of mixture will come under consideration
in the later chapters of this book.

9. While the Hexaplaric Septuagint was being copied at
Caesarea for the use of Palestine, Hesychius was engaged in
correcting the common Egyptian text.

1 Jerome says indeed (ef. ad Aug. ii.): ‘‘quod si feceris (i.e. if you
refuse Origen’s recension) omnino ecclesiae bibliothecas damnare cogeris ;
vix enim unus vel alter inveniatur liber qui ista non habeat.” But he is
drawing a hasty inference from experiences gathered in Palestine.

“ See ¢. v.

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 79

Hieron. zz praef. ad Paralipp.: “ Alexandria et Aegyptus in
Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem”; cf. adv. Rufin. ii.
where the statement is repeated!, and praef. in Evangelia, where
the revision of Hesychius is represented as having included both
Testaments, and his O. T. work is condemned as infelicitous
(“nec in V.T. post LXx. interpretes emendare quod licuit”); the
Hesychian revision of the Gospels is censured by the Decretum
Gelasi?, which even denounces.them as apocryphal (‘‘evangelia
quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha”).

It is not easy to ascertain who this Hesychius was. The
most conspicuous person of that name is the lexicographer,
and he has been identified with the reviser of the Greek Bible’*.
But later researches shew that Hesychius the lexicographer was
a pagan who lived in the second half of the fourth century.
The author of the Egyptian revision was more probably®* the
martyr Bishop who is mentioned by Eusebius in connexion
with Phileas Bishop of Thmuis, Pachymius, and Theodorus
(AE. vill. 13 Φιλέας τε καὶ Ἡσύχιος καὶ Παχύμιος καὶ Θεόδωρος
τῶν ἀμφὶ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπίσκοποι). The four names
appear together again in a letter addressed to Meletius (Routh,
rell. sacr. ἵν. Ὁ. gt ff.); and Eusebius has preserved a pastoral
written by Phileas in prison in view of his approaching martyr-
dom (#. £. viii. 10). Phileas was a distinguished scholar
(HZ. E. νι]. 9 διαπρέψας... ἐν... τοῖς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγοις, 20. το
τῶν ἔξωθεν μαθημάτων ἕνεκα πολλοῦ λόγου ἀξιον...τοῦ ὡς ἀληθῶς
φιλοσόφου... μάρτυρος), and the association of his name with
that of Hesychius suggests that he may have shared in the
work of Biblical revision. It is pleasant to think of the two
episcopal confessors employing their enforced leisure in their
Egyptian prison by revising the Scriptures for the use of their
flocks, nearly at the same time that Pamphilus and Eusebius

1 Jerome speaks elsewhere (i Zsa. lviii. rr) of ‘‘exemplaria Alexan-
drina.”’

2 Fabricius-Harles, vii. p. 547 (cf. vi. p. 205).

3 This is however mere conjecture ; see Harnack-Preuschen, i. p. 442:
‘“‘dass dieser Hesychius...identisch ist mit dem etwa gleichzeitigen Bibel-
kritiker gleichen Namens, ist nicht zu erweisen.”

80 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

and Antoninus were working under similar conditions at Caesa-
rea. It is easy to account for the acceptance of the Hesychian
revision at Alexandria and in Egypt generally, if it was pro-
duced under such circumstances.

To what extent the Hesychian recension of the Old Testa-
ment is still accessible in MSS. and versions of the Lxx. is
uncertain. As far back_as 1786 Munter threw out the very
natural suggestion that the Egyptian recension might be found
in the Egyptian versions. In his great monograph on the
Codex Marchalianus Ceriani takes note that in the Prophets,
with the exception perhaps of Ezekiel, the original text of that
great Egyptian MS. agrees closely with the text presupposed by
the Egyptian versions and in the works of Cyril of Alexandria,
and that it is supported by the cursive MSS. 26, 106, 198, 306;
other cursives of the same type are mentioned by Cornill’ as
yielding an Hesychian text in Ezekiel. For the remaining
books of the Lxx. we have as yet no published list of MSS. con-
taining a probably Hesychian text, but the investigations now
being pursued by the editors of the larger Cambridge Lxx.
may be expected to yield important help in this direction.

to. Meanwhile the rising school of Antioch was not
inactive in the field of Biblical revision. An Antiochian
recension of the κοινή had in Jerome’s time come to be known
by the name of its supposed author, the martyr Lucian’.

Hieron. praef. in Paralipp.: “Constantinopolis usque Antio-
chiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat.” Cf. ad Sunn. et
Fret. 2 “[ἡ xown]...a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur.” Ps.-Athan.
syn. sacr. script. ἑβδόμη πάλιν καὶ τελευταία ἑρμηνεία ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου
Λουκιανοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀσκητοῦ καὶ μάρτυρος, ὅστις καὶ αὐτὸς ταῖς
προγεγραμμέναις ἐκδόσεσι καὶ τοῖς ᾿Εβραικοῖς ἐντυχὼν καὶ ἐποπ-
τεύσας μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας τὰ λείποντα ἢ καὶ περιττὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ῥήματα
1 Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 66 ff.; the Hesychian group in
Ezekiel is BSxAupy, i.e. codd. 49, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238 (Parsons). See
also Ceriani in Rendiconti (Feb. 18, 1886).

2 Cf. the scholion in cod. M at 3 Regn. iii. 46 ἐντεῦθεν διαφόρως ἔχει
τὰ ἀνατολικὰ βιβλία. The Lucianic text was also known as the ἐκκλη-
σιαστικὴ ἔκδοσις (Oeconomus, iv. 548).

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 81

καὶ διορθωσάμενος ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις τῶν γραφῶν τόποις ἐξέδοτο τοῖς
χριστιανοῖς ἀδελφοῖς: ἥτις δὴ καὶ ἑρμηνεία μετὰ τὴν ἄθλησιν καὶ
μαρτυρίαν τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Λουκιανοῦ τὴν γεγονυῖαν ἐπὶ Διοκλητιανοῦ
καὶ Μαξιμιανοῦ τῶν τυράννων, ἤγουν τὸ ἰδιόχειρον αὐτοῦ τῆς ἐκδόσεως
βιβλίον, εὑρέθη ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ ἐπὶ Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως τοῦ μεγάλου
παρὰ ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἐν τοίχῳ πυργίσκῳ περικεχρισμένῳ κονιάματι εἰς
διαφύλαξιν (cf. the Acts of Lucian in Bolland. 1. p. 363). Suidass.v.
οὗτος Tas ἱερὰς βίβλους θεασάμενος πολὺ τὸ νόθον εἰσδεξαμένας, τοῦ
γε χρόνου λυμηναμένου πολλὰ τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς. καὶ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἀφ᾽
ἑτέρων εἰς ἕτερα μεταθέσεως. . αὐτὸς ἁπάσας ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ τῆς EBpaidos
ἐπανενεώσατο γλώσσης.

Lucian, who was born at Samosata, began his studies at
Edessa, whence he passed to Antioch at a time when Malchion
was master of the Greek School (Eus. 1 Z. vii. 29, Hieron. de
virr. wt. 71). At Antioch Lucian acquired a great reputation
for Biblical learning (Eus. 4. £. ix. 6 rots ἱεροῖς μαθήμασι συγ-
κεκροτημένος, Suid. 5... αὐτὴν [sc. τὴν ᾿Εβραίδα yAdooay] ws τὰ
μάλιστα ἦν ἠκριβωκώς). From some cause not clearly explained
Lucian was under a cloud for several years between A.D. 270
and 299 (Theodoret’, H. £. i. 3 ἀποσυναγωγὸς ἔμεινε τριῶν
ἐπισκόπων πολυετοῦς χρόνου. On his restoration to com-
munion he was associated with Dorotheus, who was a Hebrew
scholar, as well as a student of Greek literature (Eus. 27. 2. vii.
32 φιλόκαλος δ᾽ οὗτος περὶ τὰ θεῖα γράμματα καὶ τῆς Ἔ βραίων
ἐπεμελήθη γλώττης, ὡς καὶ αὐταῖς ταῖς ᾿Εβραικαῖς γραφαῖς ἐπιστη-
μόνως ἐντυγχάνέιν: ἦν δὲ οὗτος τῶν μάλιστα ἐλευθερίων, προπαι-
δείας τε τῆς καθ᾽ Ἕλληνας οὐκ ἀμοιρος). As Pamphilus was
assisted by Eusebius, as Phileas and others were probably
associated with Hesychius, so (the conjecture may be hazarded)
Dorotheus and Lucian worked together at the Antiochian
revision of the Greek Bible. If, as Dr Hort thought, “ of known
names Lucian’s has a better claim than any other to be associated
with the early Syrian revision of the New Testament?,” the

1 Oeconomus refuses to identify this person with the martyr and saint

(iv. p. 498 n.).
2 Introduction to the N. T. in Greek, p. 138; cf. the Oxford Debate om
the Textual Criticism of the N. T., Ῥ. 29.

S. S. 6

82 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

Syrian revision of the Old Testament, which called for a
knowledge of Hebrew, may have been due more especially
to the Hebraist Dorotheus. Lucian, however, has the ex-
clusive credit of the latter, and possibly was the originator of
the entire work. If we may believe certain later writers, his
revision of the Lxx. was on a great scale, and equivalent to a
new version of the Hebrew Bible; Pseudo-Athanasius goes so
far as to call it the ἑβδόμη ἑρμηνεία, placing it on a level with
the Greek versions of the Hexapla. But Jerome’s identification
of ‘Lucian’ with the κοινή presents quite another view of its
character and one which is probably nearer to the truth. It
was doubtless an attempt to revise the κοινῇ in accordance
with the principles of criticism which were accepted at Antioch.
In the New Testament (to use the words of Dr Hort’) “the
qualities which the authors of the Syrian text seem to have
most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness...
both in matter and in diction the Syrian text is conspicuously
a full text.” If the Lucianic revision of the Lxx. was made
under the influences which guided the Antiochian revision of
the New Testament, we may expect to find the same general
principles at work’, modified to some extent by the relation
of the Lxx. to a Hebrew original, and by the circumstance
that the Hebrew text current in Syria in the third century
A.D. differed considerably from the text which lay before the
Alexandrian translators.

We are not left entirely to conjectures. During his work
upon the Hexapla® Field noticed that in an epistle prefixed
to the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar*, the marginal letter δ (L) was said

1 [ntroduction, p. 134 f.

2 Cf. F.C. Burkitt, Old Latin and Jtala,. p. 91, ‘‘ Lucian’s recension
in fact corresponds in a way to the Antiochian text of the N.T. Both
are texts composed out of ancient elements welded together and polished
down.”

8 Prolegg. Ὁ. \xxxiv. f.

« See'c, v.

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 83

to indicate Lucianic readings. Turning to the Syro-Hexaplar
itself, he found this letter in the margin of 2 Kings (= 4 Regn.)
aCe ΙΣ Ὁ 20. Ἀν 24. 25. ΧΙ: T, XXitl./33,.95.)° But the readings
thus marked as Lucianic occur also in the cursive Greek MSS.
19, 82, 93, 108; and further examination shewed that these
four mss. in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehe-
miah agree with the text of the Lxx. offered by the Antiochian
fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret, who might have been
expected to cite from ‘ Lucian.’ Similar reasoning led Field to
Gegardwcodd. 22; 36,)48,-51, 62;' 90} 93; LAA LAT; 252, 2398
as presenting a more or less Lucianic text in the Prophets.
Meanwhile, Lagarde had independently’ reached nearly the
same result, so far as regards the historical books. He satisfied
himself that codd. 19, $2, 93, 108, 118%, had sprung from
a common archetype, the text of which was practically identical
with that of the Lxx. as quoted by Chrysostom, ie., with the
Antiochian text of the fourth century, which presumably was
Lucianic. Lagarde proceeded to construct from these and
other sources a provisional text of Lucian, but his lamented
death intercepted the work, and only the first volume of his
Lucianic Lxx. has appeared (Genesis—z Esdr., Esther).

The following specimen will serve to shew the character of

Lucian’s revision, as edited by Lagarde; an apparatus is added
which exhibits the readings of codd. B and A.

3 Regn. xviii. 22—28.

Kai εἶπεν Ἡλίας πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ᾿γὼ ὑπολέλειμμαι προφήτης
κυρίου, προφήτης μονώτατος, καὶ οἱ προφῆται τοῦ Βααλ τετρακύσιοι
ὙΠ ᾽ ρ
\ a A A ~ > ΄ ,
καὶ πεντήκοντα ἄνδρες, καὶ οἱ προφῆται τῶν ἀλσῶν τετρακύσιοι.
ξβϑδότωσαν οὖν ἡμῖν δύο Boas, καὶ ἐκλεξάσθωσαν ἑαυτοῖς τὸν ἕνα καὶ

΄ὕ ΄ “ ΄,
μελισάτωσαν καὶ ἐπιθέτωσαν ἐπὶ ξύλα καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθέτωσαν : καὶ
2 Ν tA \ a) \ 2 \ a > \ 2 θῶ 24 \ ΄σ
ἐγὼ ποιήσω τὸν βοῦν τὸν ἄλλον, καὶ πῦρ οὐ μὴ ἐπιθῶ. καὶ βοᾶτε
ἐν ὀνόματι θεῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἐπικαλέσομαι ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου τοῦ

1 Cf. his Prolegomena to Librorum V. T. Canon. Pars prior graece
(Gotting. 1883), p. xiv.
Or, as he denotes them, ὦ, f, γε, d, 2.

6—2

84 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions.

θεοῦ μου, καὶ ἔσται 6 θεὸς ὃς ἂν ἐπακούσῃ σήμερον ἐν πυρί, οὗτός ἐστι
θεός. καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Αγαθὸς ὁ ὁ λόγος ὃ ὃν ἐλάλησας.
25 καὶ εἶπεν Ἡλίας. τοῖς προφήταις τῆς αἰσχύνης ᾿Ἐκλέξασθε ἑαυτοῖς
τὸν βοῦν τὸν ἕνα, ὅτι ὑμεῖς πολλοί, καὶ ποιήσατε πρῶτοι, καὶ ἐπικα-
λεῖσθε ἐ ἐν ὀνόματι θεῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ πῦρ μὴ ἐπιθῆτε. 36 καὶ ἔλαβον τὸν
βοῦν καὶ ἐποίησαν, καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο ἐν ov όματι τοῦ Βααλ καὶ εἶπον
᾿Ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν, ὁ Βααλ, ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν. καὶ οὐκ ἦν φωνὴ καὶ
οὐκ ἦν ἀκρόασις. καὶ διέτρεχον ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου οὗ ἐποίησαν.
27καὶ ἐγένετο μεσημβρία, καὶ ἐμυκτήρισεν αὐτοὺς Ἡλίας ὁ Θεσβίτης
καὶ προσέθετο λέγων ᾿Επικαλεῖσθε ἐ ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἅμα, μήποτε ἀδο-
λεσχία τις ἔστιν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἅμα μήποτε χρηματίζει αὐτὸς ἢ μήποτε
καθεύδει, καὶ ἐξαναστήσεται. ΞΒ καὶ ἐπεκαλοῦντο ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ
κατετέμνοντο κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν ἐν μαχαίραις καὶ ἐν σειρομάσ-
ταις ἕως ἐκχύσεως αἵματος ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς.

22 Ἠλειου BA | κυριου] pr του BA | om προφητης 2° BA ᾿ οι
προφηται 2°] om οἱ A| του αλσους ΒΑ | om τετρακοσιοι 29 A
23 0m ow BA | om και επιθ. ἐπι ξυλα A | ξυλα] των ξυλων B | τὸν
αλλον]}ὔ- και δωσω ἐπι τα Evla A 24 θεων] θεου A | εαν ΒΑ | om
σημερον BA | om εστι BA | απεκριθησαν BA | εἰπον Β ear A |
ayaos ο λογος ον] καλον To ρημα o BA 25 Ἡλειου BA | βουν]
μοσχον ΒΑ | και ποι. πρωτοι ort πολλοι υὑμεις BA | επικαλεσασθε
B | θεων] θεου BA 26 ελαβεν A | βουν] μοσχον BA+ov εδωκεν
avtois A | Baad 1°|+ex πρωιθεν ews μεσημβριας BA 27 Ἡλειου
BA | προσεθετο λεγων] evrev BA | awa] ort θεος ἐστιν BA | μη-
ποτε 19] ort BA | τις ἐστιν avtw] avtw εστιν BA | καθεύδει] - αὑτος
ΒΑ 28 κατα τον εθισμον αὐτων] om Β κατα το κριμα αὐτων
A | μαχαιρα B | om εν 3° B

A comparison of ‘Lucian’ in this passage with the two great
uncials of the LXx. reveals two classes of variants in the former.
(1) Some of the changes appear to be due to a desire to render
the version smoother or fuller, e.g. Ἠλίας for Ἠλειού, the repeti-
tion of προφήτης before μονώτατος, the substitution of τῶν ἀλσῶν
for τοῦ ἄλσους, of ἀπεκρίθη for ἀπεκρίθησαν, and of ἀγαθὸς ὁ λόγος
for καλὸν τὸ ῥῆμα, and the addition of σήμερον. (2) Others seem
to indicate an attempt to get nearer to the Hebrew, e.g. δότωσαν
οὖν (5217), βοῦν (1B); or an adherence to an older reading which
the Hexaplaric LXx. had set aside, e.g. the omission of ὃν ἔδωκεν
avroist and ἐκ πρωίθεν ἕως μησημβρίας. On the other hand
Lucian follows the current Hebrew in κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν,
though he substitutes the easier ἐθισμός for Aquila’s κρίμα, which
cod. A has taken over from the Hexapla.

Professor Driver, as the result of a wider examination, points
out? that the Lucianic recension is distinguished by (1) the sub-

1 A Hexaplaric reading due to Aquila; see Field ad Joc.
2 Notes on the Heb. text of the Books of Samuel, p. 11. f.

The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recensions. 85

stitution of synonyms for the words employed by the Lxx. ;
(2) the occurrence of double renderings ; (3) the occurrence of
renderings “‘which presuppose a Hebrew original self-evidently
superior in the passages concerned to the existing Massoretic
text.” The last of these peculiarities renders it of great im-
portance for the criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Lucian suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia under Maximin
in the year 311 or 3124. According to the Pseudo-Athanasian
Synopsis, his recension of the Lxx. was subsequently discovered
at Nicomedia, bricked up in a wall. The story may have
arisen from a desire to invest the ἑβδόμη (as ‘ Lucian’ is called
by the author of the Synopsis) with the same air of romance that
belonged to the Quzu¢a and Sex¢a, both of which were found,
as he asserts, ἐν πίθοις. It is more probable that copies were
circulated from Antioch in the ordinary way, and that some of
these after the persecution reached Nicomedia and Constanti-
nople. The name of Lucian would be enough to guarantee the
general acceptance of the work. He died in the peace of the
Church, and a martyr; on the other hand his name was in
high repute with the Arian leaders, who boasted of being συλ-
λουκιανισταί. Moreover, a revision which emanated from
Antioch, the “ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople’,” would
naturally take root in the soil of the Greek East. In all
dioceses which felt the influences of those two great sees,
the Lucianic Lxx. doubtless furnished during the fourth and
fifth centuries the prevalent text of the Greek Old Testament.

11. The result of these multiplied labours of Christian scho-
lars upon the text of the Lxx. was not altogether satisfactory.
Before the time of Jerome much of the original text of the
Alexandrian Bible had disappeared. Men read their Old Tes-
tament in the recension of Lucian, if they lived in North Syria,
Asia Minor, or Greece ; in that of Hesychius, if they belonged

1 Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 324.
2 Newman, Avzans, p. 6 f. ; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 31 n.
3 Hort, /utrod. p. 143.

86 The Hexapla, and the Hexaplaric and other Recenstons.

to the Delta or the valley of the Nile; in Origen’s Hexaplaric
edition, if they were residents at Jerusalem or Caesarea.
Thus, as the scholar of Bethlehem complains, the Christian
world was divided between three opposing texts (‘‘ totus...orbis
hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat’”’). To Jerome, as a
Palestinian and an admirer of Origen’s critical principles, the
remedy was simple; the Hexaplaric text, which had been
assimilated to the Hebraica veritas, ought everywhere to take
the place of the κοινή represented by Hesychius or Lucian.
Fortunately the task was beyond his strength, and MSS. afd
versions still survive which represent more or less fully the
three recensions of the fourth century. But the ¢zfaria
varietas did not continue to perplex the Church; a fusion of
texts arose which affected the greater part of the copies in
varying proportions. No one of the rival recensions became
dominant and traditional, as in the case of the New Testament? ;
among the later MSS. groups may be discerned which answer
more or less certainly to this recension or to that, but the
greater number of the cursives present a text which appears
to be the result of mixture rather than of any conscious
attempt to decide between the contending types.

1 Praef. in Paralipp.
2 Cf. Hort, Jntrod. p. 142.

CHAPTER ΤΙΝ

ANCIENT VERSIONS BASED UPON THE SEPTUAGINT.

THE Christian Churches of Greek-speaking countries
throughout the Empire read the Old Testament in the Alexan-
drian Version. Few of the provinces were wholly non-Hellenic ;
Greek was spoken not only in Egypt and Cyrenaica, in West-
ern Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia, but to a great
extent in the West, in Italy and at Rome. Roman satirists of
the first century complained that the capital had become a
Greek city; the upper classes acquired Greek; the freedmen
and slaves in many cases spoke it as their mother tongue’.
Official letters addressed to the Roman Church or proceeding
from her during the first two centuries were written in Greek ;
only four of the Bishops of Rome during the same period bear
Latin names}. In Gaul the Greek tongue had spread up the
valley of the Rhone from the Greek colony at Marseilles to
Vienne and Lyons; the Viennese confessors of A.D. 177 used
it in their correspondence both with the Roman Bishops and
with their brethren in Asia Minor; the Bishop of Lyons wrote
in the same language his great work against the false gnoszs of
the age. The Old Testament as known to Clement of Rome
and Irenaeus of Lyons is substantially the Greek version of

1 The evidence is collected by Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Tauf-

symbols, iii. 267f., and summarised by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p.
li. ff.

88 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

the Seventy. To the Church of North Africa, on the other
hand, the Greek Bible was a sealed book; for Carthage,
colonised from Rome before the capital had been flooded
by Greek residents, retained the Latin tongue as the language
of common life. It was at Carthage, probably, that the earliest
daughter-version of the Septuagint, the Old Latin Bible, first
saw the light’; certainly it is there that the oldest form of the
Old “Latin Bible first meets us in the writings of Cyprian.
Other versions followed as the result of missionary enterprise ;
and to this latter source we owe the translations of the Old
Testament which were made between the second century and
the ninth into Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic, Armenian,
Georgian, and Slavonic. All these versions rest either wholly
or in part upon the Septuagint, and therefore possess a special
interest for the student of the Greek Bible. One other group
has a claim upon his consideration. The earliest of the Syriac
versions of the Old Testament is on the whole a translation
from the Hebrew, but it shews the influence of the Septuagint
in certain books. The rest, which belong to post-Nicene
times, are based directly upon the Alexandrian Greek, and
one of them forms the most important of extant witnesses to
the text of the Hexaplaric recension.

1. LATIN VERSIONS FROM THE SEPTUAGINT.

(1) The Latin Bible before Jerome.

With the exception of Jerome himself, our earliest authority
upon the origin of the Old Latin Bible is Augustine of Hippo,
and it may be well to begin by collecting his statements upon
the subject.

1 On the other hand reasons have been produced for suspecting that the
Latin version had its origin at Antioch; see Guardian, May 25, 1892, p.
786 ff., and Dr H. A. A. Kennedy in Hastings’ D. &. iii. p. 54 ff. [This
chapter was already in type when Dr Kennedy’s article came into my
hands. I regret that for this reason I have been unable to make full use of
his exhaustive treatment of the Latin versions. ]

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 89

Aug. de civ. Det xviii. 43 ex hac LXX. interpretatione etiam
in Latinam linguam interpretatum est quod ecclesiae Latinae
tenent. De doctr. Christ. ii. 16 [after a reference to the
“Tatinorum interpretum infinita varietas”] “qui enim scripturas
ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt,
Latini interpretes nullo modo; ut enim cuique primis fidei
temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus et aliquantulum
facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur ausus est in-
terpretari.” 706. 22: “in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala
ceteris praeferatur.” 222. ii. 82 (ad Hieronymum): “ideo autem
desidero interpretationem tuam de LXxX. ut...tanta Latinorum
interpretum qui qualescunque hoc ausi sunt quantum possumus
imperitia careamus.”

This is African testimony, but it belongs to the end of the
fourth century, and needs to be verified before it can be
unhesitatingly received. Many of the discrepancies to which
Augustine refers may be due to the carelessness or officious-
ness of correctors or transcribers; if, as Jerome tells us,
there were towards the end of the fourth century as many
types of text as there were MSS. of the Latin Bible (‘tot exem-
plaria quot codices”), it is clearly out of the question to
ascribe each of these to a separate translator. A few specimens,
taken from Cyprian and extant MSS. of the O. L., will enable
the student to form some idea of the extent to which these
differences are found in extant texts’.

Genesis xlvili. 17 ἢ.
CYPRIAN, festimonia i. 213. LYONS PENTATEUCH.

7ubi vidit autem loseph quo-
niam superposuit pater suus
manum dexteram super caput
Effraim, grave illi visum est, et
adprehendit Ioseph manum pa-
tris sui auferre eam a capite
Effraim ad caput Manasse. *dixit
autem Ioseph ad patrem suum
Non sic, pater; hic est primi-
tivus meus; superpone dexteram
tuam super caput suum.

7videns autem Ioseph quod
misisset pater ipsius dexteram
suam super caput Ephrem, grave
ei visum est, et adprehendit Io-
seph manum patris sui ut aufer-
ret eam a capite Ephrem super
caput Manassis. “dixit autem
Ioseph patri suo Non sicut,
pater; hic enim primitivus est;
impone dextram tuam_ super
caput huius.

1 To facilitate comparison obvious errors of the MSS. and orthographical

peculiarities have been removed.

2 On the MSS. of the Zestimonia cf. O. L. Texts, ii. p. 123 ff.

90

LYONS
PENTATEUCH.

tet dixit Moyses
ad Aron Quid fecit
tibi populus hic quia
induxisti super eos
peccatum magnum?
22et dixit Aron ad
Moysen Noli irasci,
domine; tu enim scis
impetum populihuius.
73dixerunt enim mihi
Fac nobis deos qui
praeeant nos; nam
Moyses hic homo qui
eduxit nos de Aegyp-

to, mnescimus quid
qactaim) sit .c1. et
dixi eis Quicunque

habet aurum demat
sibi. et dederunt mihi,
et misi illud in ignem,
et exiit vitulus.

Exod. xxxil. 2I—24.

WURZBURG
FRAGMENTS.

tet dixit Moyses
ad Aron Quid fecit
populus hic quia in-
duxisti super eos pec-
catum magnum? *et
dixit Aron ad Moysen
Noli irasci, domine;
tu enim scis impetum
populi huius. *dixe-
runt enim mihi Fac
nobis deos qui praece-
dant nos; nam Moy-
ses hic homo qui e-
duxit nos ex terra Ae-
gypti, nescimus quid
factum Ost eis: et
dixi illis Quicunque
habet aurum, demat ;
et dempserunt*, et
dederunt mihi, et misi
illud in ignem, et exiit
vitulus.

* cod. demiserunt

Leviticus iv. 27—29.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

MUNICH
FRAGMENTS.

2tet dixit Moyses
ad Aron Quid fecit
tibi populus hic quo-
niam immisisti eis
delictum maximum ἢ
et dixit Aron ad
Moysen Ne irascaris,
domine; tu enim scis
populi huius impe-
tum. *dixerunt enim
mihi Fac nobis deos
qui praecedant nos;
Moyses enim hic
homo qui nos eiecit
de terra Aegypti, ne-
scimus quid acciderit
el. *et dixi eis Si qui
habet -aurum }2..sseei
tollatad me; et dede-
runt mihi, et proieci
in ignem, et exivit
vitulus.

+ hiat cod.

Lyons MS.

775i autem anima deliquerit in-
prudenter de populo terrae in
faciendo vel unum ex omnibus
praeceptis Dei quod non faciet,
et neglexerit, “et cognitum ei
fuerit delictum in quo deliquit*
in eo, et adferett+ primitivum de
ovibus feminum immaculatum
quod deliquit; *?et imponet ma-
num supra caput eius et occident
primitivum delicti in loco in quo
occidunt holocausta.

+ cod. adfert

*

cod. delinguit

WURZBURG FRAGMENTS.

5751 autem animauna deliquerit
invita de populo in terra eo quod
fecit unum ab omnibus praecep-
tis Domini, quod fieri non debet,
et neglexerit, “et cognitum fuerit
peccatum eius quod peccavit in
ipso, et adferet hedillam de ca-
pris feminam sine vitio propter
delictum quod deliquit; et su-
perponet manum super caput de-
licti sui et victimabunt hedillam
quae est delicti in loco ubi vic-
timabunt holocausta.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. ΟἹ

Micah v. 2.

CYPRIAN, ¢estimoznia 11. 12.

et tu, Bethleem, domus illius
Ephratha, num exigua es ut
constituaris in milibus Iuda? ex
te mihi procedet ut sit princeps
apud Israel, et processiones eius
a principio, a diebus saeculi.

WEINGARTEN FRAGMENTS.

et tu, Be[thleem,] domus [ha-
bita]tioni[s! Efra]ta, nu[mquid
mini{ma es] ut sis [in pode
luda? [ex te miJhi pro[diet qui]
sit prin[ceps in]- Istra{hel, et
eg|ressus ip[sius ab] initi[o, ex
diebus] saec{ uli].

Isaiah xxix. II, 18.

CYPRIAN, /estimonia 1. 4.

™et erunt vobis hi omnes ser-
mones sicut sermones libri qui
signatus est, quem si dederis
homini scienti litteras ad legen-
dum dicet Non possum legere,
signatus est enim..."’sed in illa
die audient surdi sermones libri,
et qui in tenebris et qui in
nebula sunt; oculi caecorum vi-
debunt.

WURZBURG PALIMPSEST.

"et erunt verba haec omnia
sicut verba libri huius signati,
quem si dederint homini scienti
litteras dicentes ex lege haec, et
dicet Non possum legere, signa-
tum est enim...et audient in
die illa surdi verba libri, et qui
in tenebris et qui in nebula;
oculi caecorum videbunt.

It is clearly unsafe to generalise from a few specimens, but

the student will not fail to observe that the variations in these
extracts may, perhaps without exception, be attributed either
to the ordinary accidents of transcription or to the recensions
of the original text. In the case of the New Testament
Dr Hort? held that there was ‘“‘some justification for the
alternative view that Italy had an indigenous version of her
own, not less original than the African,” and where both types
of text existed, he distinguished them by the designations
‘African Latin’ and ‘European Latin,’ applying the term
‘Italian’* to later revisions of the European text. The classi-
fication of the Old Latin authorities for the O. T. is less
advanced, and owing to the fragmentary character of most of

1 Burkitt (O. 2. and [tala, p. 93) proposes refectionis.

* Introduction, p. 78 ff. Cf. Westcott, Canon, p. 252 ff.; Wordsworth,

O. L. Biblical Texts, i., p. xxx. ff.
> On Augustine’s use of this term see F. C. Burkitt, O. 2. and /tala,

p- 55 ff.

92 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

the MSS. it is more difficult; but we may assume that it will
proceed on the same general lines, and that the pre-Hierony-
mian types of text in the Old Testament as in the New will be
found to be mainly two, ie. the African, and the European,
with a possible sub-division of the latter class’. In pursuing
this enquiry use must be made not only of the surviving frag-
ments of O. L. MSS., but of the numerous quotations of the
Latin versions which occur in writings anterior to the final
triumph of the Vulgate. As Dr Hort has pointed out’, certain
of the Latin fathers “constitute a not less important province
of Old Latin evidence than the extant MSS., not only furnishing
landmarks for the investigation of the history of the version,
but preserving numerous verses and passages in texts belonging
to various ages and in various stages of modification.” These
patristic materials were collected with great care and fulness
by Sabatier (Bzbliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae...
opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier O. S. B., Reims, 1743, ’49,
Paris, 1751; vols. i. 11. contain the O. T.); but after the lapse
of a century and a half his quotations can no longer be accepted
without being compared with more recent editions of the Latin
fathers*, and they often need to be supplemented from sources
which were not at his command’.

These researches are important to the student of the
Septuagint in so far as they throw light on the condition of
the Greek text in the second and third centuries after
Christ. The Latin translation of the Old Testament which is
largely quoted by Cyprian was probably made in the second
century, and certainly represents the text of MSS. earlier than

1 Cf. Berger, Wistozre de la Vulgate, p. 6; Kennedy, in Hastings’ D. 8.
8 ff.

2 Lntroduction, p. 83.

3 For this purpose the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Lcclesiasticorum
Latinorum is the best collection available ; but it is still far from complete.

4 A revised Sabatier is promised by the Munich Academy (A7chzz, viii.
2, Ὁ. 311 ff.).

on

p-

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 03

the time of Origen. What Mr Burkitt has pointed out’ in
reference to the prophetic books is doubtless true in general ;
“‘no...passage [to which the asterisk is prefixed in Hexaplaric
MSS.] is found in any form of the African Latin.” Thus, as
he remarks, ‘‘the Old Latin brings us the best independent
proof we have that the Hexaplar signs introduced by Origen
can be relied on for the reconstruction of the Lxx.” Again,
M. Berger* has called attention to the prominence of Lucianic
readings in certain Old Latin texts; and the fact that a
Lucianic element is widely distributed in Old Latin MSS. and
quotations has also been recognised by Vercellone* and
Ceriani*. This element is found even in the African text®, and
its occurrence there suggests that the Antiochian recension,
though it was made at the beginning of the fourth century, has
preserved ancient readings which existed also in the African
copies of the Lxx., though they found no place in our oldest
codices.

We proceed to give a list of the extant remains of the Old
Latin Version of the Lxx., and the editions in which they are
accessible.

OLD LATIN FRAGMENTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

i. PENTATEUCH.

Cod. Lugdunensis, vi. (Ulysse Robert, Pentateucht e Codice
Lugdunenst versio Latina antiguissima, Paris, 1881; Librorum
Levitict et Numerorum versio antigua Itala e cod. perantiquo in
bibliotheca Ashburnhamienst conservato, London, 1868; Delisle,
Découverte Mune tres ancienne verston latine de deux livres de
la Bible in the Journal des Savants, Nov. 1895, p. 702 ff.).

1 Rules of Tyconius, p. cxvi. f.

* Histoire dela Vulgate, p.6. Cf. Driver, Samuel, p. Ixxvii. ff.

3 Variae lectiones, ii., p. 426.

4 Monumenta sacra et profana,1.i.,p. xvi.; Le recensioni dei LX X ela
versione latina della [tala (Rendiconte, Feb. 18, 1886). See also Driver,
Notes on Samuel, p. \xxviii. f.; Kennedy, in Hastings’ D. B., Δ c.; Nestle,
Banpilrung?, pp- 148 note, 280; Wordsworth- White, p. 654.

Burkitt, Aedes of Tyconius, p. cxvii.

94 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

Containing Gen. xvi. 9—xvil. 18, xix. 5—29, Xxvi. 33—XxXxill.
15, XXXVll. 7—XxXXvlil. 22, xliil. 36—l. 26; Exod. i. I—vil. 19, xxi.
g—36, xxv. 25—-xxvl. 13, xxvil. 6—xl. 32; Leviticus! i. I—xviii.
30, xxv. 16—xxvii. 34; Numbers! ; Deuteronomy?.

Fragmenta Wirceburgensia palimpsesta, ? vi. (E. Ranke, Par
palimpsestorum Wirceburgenstum*, Vienna, 1871).

Containing Gen. xxxvi. 2—7, 14—24, xl. 12—20, xli. 4—5;
Exod. xxil. 7-28, xxv. 30—xxXVi. 12, xxxil. 15 —33, XXXill. 13—27,
XXXV. I13—XXxVl. I, xxxix. 2—xl. 30; Lev. iv. 23—-vi. I, vil. 2,
II, 16—17, 22—27, Vill. I—3, 6—13, Xl. 7—Q, 12—I5, 2225, 27—
47, XVii. I4—XVIil. 21, XIX. 31—XxX. 3, XX. 12, 20—-XxXI. 2, xxil. 10---
29; Deut. xxviii. 42—53, ΧΧΧΙ. 1I—26.

Fragmenta Monacensia, v.—vi. (L. Ziegler, Bruchstiicke einer

vorhieronymianischen Ubersetzung des Pentateuchs, Munich,
1883).

Containing Exod. ix. I5—x. 24, xil. 28—xiv. 4, xvi. IO—xx. 5,
XXX1. I5—XXXIll. 7, XXxVi. 13—xl. 32; Lev. 111. 17—1v. 25, xi. 12—
ΧΙ]. 6, xiv. 17—xv. 10, xvill. 18—xx. 3; Num. lil. 34—Iv. 8, iv. 31
—v. 8, vii. 37---73, ΧΙ. 20—xil. 14, xxix. 6---χχχ. 3, ΧΧΧΙ. 14—XXXV.
6, χχάνί. 4—13; Deut. viii. 19--Χ. 12, ΧΧΙΪ. 7—xxlll. 4, XXvill. I—
31, Xxx. 16—xxxll. 29.

Lectiones ap. Cod. Ottobonian., viii. (C. Vercellone, variae
lecttones, Rome, 1860, 1. p. 183 ff.).

Containing Gen. xxxvil. 27—35, xxxvill. 6—14, xli. I—4, 14—
20, xlvi. 15—20, xlviil. 13, 20—22, xlix. 1I— 32, l. I—25; Exod. x.
13—I4, xi. 7—IO, xvl. 16—36, xvll. I—IO, xxili. 12—30, xxiv. I—
18, xxv. I—37, XXVl. I—27, Xxvll. I—5.

Fragmenta Philonea (F. C. Conybeare, in Exfosttor Iv. iv.
D;. 03-11).

Consisting of Gen. xxv. 20—xxviii. 8 in a Latin version of
Philo, guaest.

Fragmenta Vindobonensia (J. Belsheim, Palzmpsestus Vindob.,
1885).

Containing Gen. xil. 17—-xill. 14, xv. 2—I2.

1 Leviticus and Numbers formed until recently a separate codex, see
Robert, p. vi. f.

2 Deut. xi. 4—xxxiv. 12 belongs to the fragment announced by Delisle
but not yet published.

3 Belonging to the Library of the University of Wiirzburg.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 95

11. HISTORICAL BOOKS.
Joshua, Judges.

Cod. Lugdunensis (including the new portion announced by
Delisle, Découverte &c.).

Ruth.

Cod. Complutensis, ix., Madrid, Univ. Libr. (S. Berger in

Notices et Extratts, xxxiv. 2, p. 119 ff.).
1—4 Regn.

Fragments of Corbie and St Germain MSS. (Sabatier);
fragments from a Verona MS. and a Vatican MS. in Bianchini
(Vindictae, p. cccxli. ff.), from a Vienna MS. in Haupt’s vet.
antehteron. vers. fragmenta Vindobonensia, 1877, from an Ein-
siedeln MS. in Notices e¢ Extraits xxxiv. 2, p. 127 ff., and from
leaves found at Magdeburg and Quedlinburg! printed by W.
Schum, 1876, and A. Dining, 1888. A Vienna palimpsest con-
taining considerable fragments of 1I—2 Regn. (J. Belsheim,
Palimpsestus Vind., 1885). Readings from the margin of Cod.
Goth. Legionensis? printed by C. Vercellone, ii. p. 179 ff.; cf.
Archiv, viii. 2.

I Esdras.

An O.L. text is to be found in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat.
I11, the Madrid MS. E. R. 8, and another in a Lucca MS. ap.
Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, 1892.

Judith, Tobit.

Cod. Complutensis.

Cod. Goth. Legionensis.

Cod. Vatic. regin. (Bianchini, Vindzezae, p. ‘cccl. f.; Tobit
only).

O.L. texts are also to be found in the Paris MSS. Bibl. Nat.
lat. 6, 93, 161 (Tobit), 11505, 11549 (Judith), 11553, in the Munich
MS. 6239, the Milan MS. Amb. E 26 infr. (Tobit), and the Oxford
MS. Bodl. auct. E. infr. 2 (Judith). See Wotices et Extratts,
p. 142 ff. Of these texts some were printed by Sabatier, and
Munich 6239 is in Belsheim’s Lzbr. Todbztae, &c. (1893).

Esther.

Cod. Pechianus (Sabatier).
Cod. Vallicellanus (Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. ccxciv. ff.).

1 See V. Schultze, de Quedlinburger Italo-Miniaturen der k. Bibliothek
in Berlin (Munich, 1898).

2 On these see Berger, Hist. de la Vulgate, p. 18 f., and the caution in
O. L. and Itala, p. 9 f.

96 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

Cod. Complutensis (see above under Ruth).

An O. L. text of Esther is found also in the Paris MS. Bibl.
Nat. lat. 11549 (=Corb. 7), the Lyons MS. 356, the Munich MSS.
6225, 6239, the Monte Casino MS. 35 (Bzblioth. Casin. i., 1873),
the Milan MS. Amb. E. 26 infr. (see S. Berger of. cét.).

I, 2 Maccabees.

O. L. texts are to be found in the Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat.
11553 (Sabatier) and the Milan MS. Amb. E. 26 inf. (A. Peyron,
Cic. fragmm. i. 70 ff. (1824).

(See Berger, of. 222)

iil. POETICAL BOOKS.
Psalms.

Cod. Veronensis (in Bianchini).

Cod. Sangermanensis (in Sabatier).

A Reichenau palimpsest described by Mone, /. 2. or. Messen,
Pp. 40.

Fragments of the @dai edited by F. F. Fleck (Leipzig, 1837),
and L. F. Hamann (Jena, 1874).

Job.
Fragment. Floriacense (Sabatier). Containing c. xl. 3—9.
Readings from the margin of Cod. Goth. Legionensis (/Vodzces
et Extraits, p. 111 ff.).

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles.
Readings in a St Gallen MS., see (Votices et Extraits, p.
137 {{

Wisdom, Sirach.
See Lagarde, Witthetlungen i. (Gottingen, 1884).

iv. PROPHETS.

Fragmenta Wirceburgensia, vi. (Ὁ) (E. Ranke, Par palimp.
Wirceb. p. 49 sqq.).

Containing Hos. i. I—il. 13, iv. 13—Vil. 1; Jon. 111. Io—iv. 11;
Isa. xxix. I—xxx. 6, xlv. 20—xlvi. 11; Jer. ΧΙ]. 12—xili. 12, xiv. 15
—xvii. 10, xviii. 16—xxiil. 39, xxxv. I5—19, XXxVi. 2—XxxVIll. II,
XXxVili. 23—xl. 5, xli. 1—17; Lam. 11. 16—ili. 40; Ezek. xxiv.
4—21, Χχνὶ. IO—xxvii. 4, χχχῖν. I16—xxxv. 5, XXXvVil. 19—28,
XXXVill. 8—z20, xl. 3—xlii. 18, xlv. I—xlvi. 9, xlvilil. 28—35; Dan.
i. 2—ii. 9, iii. 15 —(26), vill. 5—ix. 10, x. 3—xl. 4, 20—42, and Bel.

Fragmenta Fuldensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. verstonts ante-
Hieronymianae, Marburg, 1856).

Containing Hos. vii. 6—ix. 1, Amos ix. 3—9, Mic. il. 3—ili. 3.

tt 6 ee nti el δα ed

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 07

» Fragmenta Weingartensia, v. (E. Ranke, Fragm. v. ante-fH.,
Vienna, 1868; P. Corssen, Zwet neue Fragmente d. Weingar-
tener Prophetenhandschi 272, Berlin, 1899).

Containing Hos. iv. 13 f., v. 5, 7, vil. 16, vill. I—6, 13 f., ix.
1-17; oh a Pa ga ae ee. ae Oa 3—XIv. 2; Amos v. 24—vIi. 8, viil.
IO—ix. I, 5—x. 9; Mic. i. panei 3: 10: 3-νῇ!. 20; Joeli. 1---ἴ 4,
li. 3—5, lV. 2—4, 1517; Jon. 1. 124: νι 8; Ezek. xvi. 52—xvil.
6, 19—xvill. 9, XXlv. 25—xxv. 14, XXVl. IO—xxvVil. 7, I17—IQ,
XXVill. I—I7, Xxxlli. 7—II, xlil. 5, 6, 14, xliill. 22—xliv. 5, 19—xlv.
2, xlvi. 9—23, xlvii. 2—I5, xlviil. 22—30; Dan. ii. 18—33, ix. 25—
x. II, xl. 18—23.

Fragmenta Stutgardiana (E. Ranke, Antiguissima V. T.
verstonis Latinae fragmenta, Marburg, 1888).

Containing Amos vil. I—vill. 10; Ezek. xvill. 9—17, xx. 18—
21, XXVil. 7—I7, ΧΧΧΙΪ. 26—30, xxxiv, 6—12; Dan. xi. 35—39.

Fragmenta monast. 5. Pauli Carinthiaci (A. Vogel, Beztrage
zur Herstellung der A. L. Bibeliibersetzung, Vienna, 1868).

Containing Ezek. xlii. 5, 6, 14, xliv. 19—xlv. 2, xlvi. 9—23,
xlvii. 2—15.

Fragmenta palimpsesta Vaticana (F. Gustafsson, Fragmenta
V. T. in Latinum conversta palimpsesto Vaticano eruta, Helsing-
fors, 1881).

Containing Hosea iv. 6, 7; Joel ii. 5—7; Amos v. 16—18,
vil. 2—7, ix. 5—8; Jon. iil. 7—iv. 2; Hab. i. 16—11. 3; Zeph. iii.
13—20; Zech. vii. I1I—14, viii. 16—21.

Fragmenta palimpsesta Sangallensia (F. C. Burkitt, O. Z.
and Itala, Camb. 1896).

Containing Jer. xvil. IO—17, xxix. 13—19.
Codex Vallicellanus B. vii. (Bianchini, Vzndzciae, p. ccxiii.).

Containing Baruch.

O. L. texts of Baruch are also to be found in the Paris MSS.
Bibl. Nat. lat. 11, 161, 11951, and Arsenal. 65, 70; and in the
Monte Casino MS. 35, and the Reims MS. 1.

Copious extracts from most of the books of the O.,L. Bible
are given in the anonymous Lzder de divinis scripturis sive Specu-
Zum, wrongly attributed to St Augustine (ed. F. Weihrich in
the Vienna Corus, vol. xil.). Two other patristic collections of
Ὁ. L. excerpts may also be mentioned here—the Testzmonia of
St Cyprian (ed. Hartel, Corpus, vol. iii. 1), and the “ber regu-
larum Tyconi (ed. F. Gs Burkitt, in Texts and Studies, 111. 1).
See also the Col/atio Carthaginiensis printed in Dupin’s SET:

(Paris, 1700), p. 379 ff.
SoS. Z

98 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

(2) Latin versions of the Lxx. revised or taken over “by
Jerome.

The great Pannonian scholar, Eusebius Hieronymus (A.D.
329—420), began his ‘‘useful labours'” upon the Old Testa-
ment at Rome about the year 383, probably (as in the case of
his revision of the Gospels) at the suggestion of the Roman
Bishop Damasus (t 384). His first attempt was limited to a
revision of the Latin Psalter and conducted on lines which
afterwards seemed to him inadequate. A few years later—but
before 390—1, when he began to translate from the Hebrew—
a fresh revision of the Psalter from the Lxx. was undertaken
at the desire of Paula and Eustochium; its immediate purpose
was to remove errors which had already found their way into
the copies of the earlier work, but the opportunity was seized
of remodelling the Latin Psalter after the example of the
Hexapla.

Praef. in libr. Psalmorum: “psalterium Romae dudum posi-
tum emendaram et iuxta LXX. interpretes, licet cursim, magna
illud ex parte correxeram!. quod quia rursum videtis, o Paula
et Eustochium, scriptorum vitio depravatum, plusque antiquum
errorem quam novam emendationem valere, cogitis ut...renas-
centes spinas eradicem.....notet sibi unusquisque vel iacentem
lineam vel signa radiantia, id est vel obelos (+) vel asteriscos (X ) 5
et ubicunque viderit virgulam praecedentem (+), ab ea usque ad
duo puncta (:) quae impressimus, sciat in LXxX. translatoribus:
plus haberi; ubi autem stellae (ὃς) similitudinem perspexerit,
de Hebraeis voluminibus additum noverit aeque usque ad duo
puncta, iuxta Theodotionis dumtaxat editionem qui simplicitate
sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non discordat.”

These two revised Latin Psalters were afterwards known as.
Psalterium Romanum and Psalterium Gallicanum respectively.
Both recensions established themselves in the use of the Latin
Church’, the former in the cursus psallendi, the latter in the

1 Aug. ep. 82 (ad Hieronymum): “hi qui me invidere putant utilibus

laboribus tuis.”

2 Cf. adv. Rujfin. ii. 30 “ psalterium...certe emendatissimum iuxta LXX.
interpretes nostro labore dudum Roma suscepit”’; where, as Westcott says.
(Smith’s D. BZ. iii. 1698 7.), he seems to include both revisions.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 99

bibliotheca or Church Bible. At length Pius V. (fT 1572)
ordered the Gallican Psalter to be sung in the daily offices, an
exception being made in favour of St Peter’s at Rome, St
Mark’s at Venice, and the churches of the Archdiocese of
Milan, which retained the ‘Roman’ Psalter’. In MSS. of
the Vulgate a triple Psalter not infrequently appears, shewing
Jerome’s two Septuagintal revisions side by side with the Psa/-
terium Hebraicum, his later translation from the Hebrew; but
the ‘ Hebrew’ Psalter never succeeded in displacing the Hiero-
nymian revisions of the Old Latin, and the Latin Church still
sings and reads a version of the Psalms which is based on the
‘Septuagint. The liturgical Psalter of the Anglican Church
*‘followeth...the Translation of the Great English Bible, set
forth and used in the time of King Hezry the Eighth, and
Edward the Sixth’; 1.6. it is on the whole a version of the
‘Gallican’ Psalter which had passed through Tindale and
Coverdale into Cranmer’s Bible (1540).
The following specimen (Ps. lxvii.=Ixvili. 12—14, 18—22)
will enable the reader to form an idea of the relation between

Jerome’s two revisions of the Old Latin and his ‘Hebrew’
Psalter.

ROMAN.

τῷ Dominus dabitver-
bum evangelizantibus
virtute multa; “rex
virtutum dilecti,et spe-
ciei domus dividere
spolia. 1451 dormiatis
in medios cleros, pen-
nae columbae dear-
gentatae, et posteriora
dorsi eius in specie
auri. [dzapsalma),.....
*currus Deidecem mi-
lium multiplex, milia
laetantium. Dominus

GALLICAN,

15 Dominus dabit ver-
bum evangelizantibus
virtute multa; ‘rex
virtutum ὃς dilecti: et
speciei domus divi-
dere spolia. 1:51 dor-
miatis inter medios
cleros pennae colum-
bae deargentatae et
posteriora ¥ dorsieius
in pallore auri. da-
PsALMA. 1.00000" CUITUS
Dei decem milibus
multiplex, milia lae-

HEBREW.

15 Domine, dabis ser-
monem adnuntiatri-
cibus fortitudinis plu-
rimae, “reges exerci-
tuum foederabuntur,
foederabuntur et pul-
critudo domus dividet
spolia. **si dormieritis
inter medios termi-
nos, pennae columbae
deargentatae et pos-
teriora eius in virore
AUG δον ὁ *currus Dei
innumerabiles, milia

1 Martene, de ant. rit. i. p. 18 f.

Dee

100 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

ROMAN.

in illis in Sina in
sancto. *ascendens in
altum captivam duxit
captivitatem, dedit
dona hominibus. et-
enim non credunt in-
habitare. * Dominus
Deus benedictus ; be-
nedictus Dominus de
die in diem. prospe-
rum iter faciet nobis
Deus salutaris noster.
diapsalma. ™ Deus
noster deus salvos fa-
ciendi, et Domini exi-
tus mortis. *verum-
tamen Deus conquas-
sabit capita inimico-
rum suorum, verticem
capilli perambulan-
tium in delictis suis.

GALLICAN.

tantium : Dominus in
eis *® in : Sina in
sancto. 9 ascendisti
in altum: cepisti cap-
tivitatem, accepisti
dona in hominibus.
etenim non credentes
inhabitare Dominum
Deum. * benedictus
Dominus die quoti-
die; prosperum iter
faciet nobis Deus sa-
lutarium nostrorum.
diapsalma. ** Deus
noster, Deus salvos+
faciendi: et Domini
* Domini: exitus
mortis. ??verumtamen
Deus confringet capi-
ta inimicorum suo-
rum, verticem capilli

HEBREW.

abundantium; Domi-
nus in els in Sina, in
sancto. *ascendisti
in excelsum, captivam
duxisti captivitatem,
accepisti dona in ho-
minibus; insuper et
non credentes habi-
tare Dominum Deum.
°>benedictus Domi-
nus per singulos dies ;
portabit nos Deus
salutis nostrae. sem-
per. **Deus noster
deus salutis,et Domini
Dei mortis egressus.
*verumtamen Deus
confringet capita ini-
micorum suorum, ver-
ticem crinis ambulan-
tis in delictis suis.

+perambulantium in
delictis suis.

The book of Job offered a still more promising field for the
labours of the Hexaplarising reviser, for the Greek text as
known to Origen fell greatly short of the current Hebrew, and
it was this defective text which formed the basis of the Latin
versions used by Cyprian and Lucifer and in the Speculum’.
Jerome, who had access to the Hexapla at Caesarea, took
advantage of Origen’s revision, in which the lacunae of the
Greek Job were filled up from Theodotion, and sent his friends,
Paula and Eustochium, a Latin version of Job at once cor-
rected and supplemented from the Hexaplaric Lxx. The result
gave him for the time profound satisfaction ; he had lifted up
Job from the dunghill’, and restored him to his pristine state® ;

1 Burkitt, O. 2. and tala, pp. 8, 32 f.

2 Praef. in libr. Fob: ‘qui adhuc apud Latinos iacebat in stercore et
vermibus scatebat errorum.”

3 762d. ‘‘integrum immaculatumque gaudete.”’

ΡΥ ΨΥ Ὑ νιν νιν νυ» ἡ» ν».“νν.΄«ὦἀὰ» νιν» τσ» ΜΌΝ

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 101

the difference between the Old Latin version and the new
seemed to him to be nothing short of that which separates
falsehood from truth’. The asterisks shewed that from 700 to
800 lines had been restored to this long mutilated book’.

A few brief specimens from Lagarde’s text? will suffice to
shew the character of the work.

x. 4 aut sicut homo perspicit, perspicis? * aut sicut videt
homo, videbis? “ aut humana est vita tua? aut anni tui sunt
tanquam * dies % hominis?

xix. 17 et rogabam uxorem meam ¥ invocabam ~+ blandiens
filios ® uteri mei X; at illi in perpetuum despexerunt me; cum
surrexero, locuntur ad me.

xlii. 7 et defunctus est Job senex plenus dierum. + scriptum
est atitem resurrecturum cum his quos Dominus suscitabit.

Jerome also revised from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, for
the benefit of Paula and Eustochium, the ‘books of Solomon’
(Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles), treating the Greek text
after the manner of Origen; but his work has perished, the
preface alone surviving. A like fate has overtaken a transla-
tion of Chronicles, undertaken at the desire of Domnio and
Rogatianus. This version of Chronicles appears from the preface
to have been influenced by Jerome’s Hebrew studies, which were
now sufficiently matured to enable him to form an independent
judgement in reference to the merits of his Greek text, though
he still clung to his old belief in the inspiration of the original
Septuagint.

Praef. in libros Salomonis: “tres libros Salomonis, id est,

Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, Canticum canticorum, veteri LXX. auc-
toritati reddidi, vel antepositis lineis (+) superflua quaeque

1 Ad Pammach.: ‘‘veterem editionem nostrae translationi compara, et
liquido providebitis quantum distet inter veritatem et mendacium.”
Jerome’s satisfaction with his original revision of Job was continued
even after he had produced a new version from the Hebrew; in the
preface to the latter he leaves the student free to choose between the two
(‘ eligat unusquisque quod vult”).

* Praef. in Fob ed. Heb. See below, pt 1., c. ii.

3 In Milthetlungen, ii.

ΙΟ2 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

designans, vel stellis (%*) titulo(?) praenotatis ea quae minus
habebantur interserens...et ubi praepostero ordine atque per-
verso sententiarum fuerat lumen ereptum suis locis restituens
feci intellegi quod latebat.” Praef. in libr. Paralipomenon:
“cum a me nuper litteris flagitassetis ut vobis librum Paralipo-
menon Latino sermone transferrem, de Tiberiade legis quondam
doctorem qui apud Hebraeos admirationi habebatur assumpsi...
et sic confirmatus ausus sum facere quod iubebatis. libere enim
vobis loquor, ita et in Graecis et Latinis codicibus hic nominum
liber vitiosus est ut non tam Hebraea quam barbara quaedam...
arbitrandum sit. nec hoc LXxX. interpretibus qui Spiritu sancto
pleni ea quae vera fuerant transtulerunt, sed scriptorum culpae
adscribendum.,...ubicunque ergo asteriscos...videritis ibi sciatis
de Hebraeo additum...ubi vero obelus, transversa scilicet virga,
praeposita est, illic signatur quid LXX. interpretes addiderint.”

Whether Jerome dealt with the rest of the canonical books
of the Old Latin in the same manner must remain an open
question. No trace remains either of such revised versions or
of prefaces which once belonged to them, nor does he refer to
them in the prefaces of his translations from the Hebrew. On
the other hand his letters occasionally speak of his revision of
the Old Latin in terms which seem to imply that it was com-
plete, and in one of them there is a passage which suggests that
the disappearance of the other books was due to the dishonesty
of some person whose name is not given.

Adv. Rufin. ii. 24: “egone contra LXX. interpretes aliquid
sum locutus quos ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatos
meae linguae studiosis dedi?” £7. 71 (ad Lucintum): “LXX.
editionem et te habere non dubito.” 452. 106 (ad Sunn. et Fret.):
“editionem LXX. interpretum quae et in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus repe-
ritur et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est.” Cf.
Ep. Augustint ad Hieron. (116), (c. 405): ‘“‘mittas obsecro inter-
pretationem tuam de LXxX. quam te edidisse nesciebam.” At
a later time (c. 416) Jerome excuses himself from doing as
Augustine had desired, since “pleraque prioris laboris fraude
cuiusdam amisimus” (Σ 2. 134).

In any case Jerome’s Hexaplarised version had little or
no influence on the text of the Latin Bible, except in the
Psalter. Even his translations from the Hebrew did not easily
supersede the Old Latin. The familiar version died hard and,

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 103

as the list of MSS. will have shewn, parts of it were copied
as late as the seventh century. Even at Rome the old
version long held its ground by the side of the new; in the
last years of the sixth century, Gregory the Great, while basing
his great commentary on Job upon the Vulgate, claimed a
right to cite the Old Latin when it served his purpose, “ quia
sedes apostolica utrique nititur’.”

The coexistence of the two versions naturally produced
mixture in the MSS.*, which was not altogether removed by the
revisions of the sixth and ninth centuries. Moreover, the Old
Latin version continued to hold its place in those books of
the Church Bible which had no Semitic original, or of which
the Semitic original was no longer current. In the preface to
the Salomonic Books Jerome says explicitly: ‘‘porro in eo
libro qui a plerisque Safpzentia Salomonis inscribitur et in
Ecclesiastico...calamo temperavi, tantummodo canonicas scrip-
turas vobis emendare desiderans.” The books of Tobit and
Judith® were afterwards translated by him from the Aramaic
(praeff. in librum Tobiae, in librum Judith), and these versions
have been incorporated in the Vulgate, but the Vulgate
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1, 2 Maccabees are supplied
from ante-Hieronymian sources. Thus to this day a consider-
able part of the Latin Bible is in greater or less degree an
echo of the Septuagint.

LITERATURE. Besides the editions already mentioned the
student may consult with advantage Eichhorn, L£zz/eztung, i.
321; N. Wiseman, Zssays, 1. (London, 1853)—a reprint of his
Two letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 Joh. v.
7; B. F. Westcott, art. Vulgate in Smith’s D. Z. iii.; H. Rénsch,

Itala τι. Vulgata (Marburg, 1869); F. Kaulen, Handbuch zur
Vulgata (Mainz, 1870); Ziegler, Dze lat. Bibeliibersetzungen vor

1 Praef. ad Moralia in Fob.

2 Cf. e.g. Berger, of. cit. p. xi.: ‘les textes des anciennes versions et
de la nouvelle sont constamment mélés et enchevétrés dans les manuscrits.”

3 On the relation of Jerome’s Latin Judith to the Septuagint see
Ὁ. J. Ball in Speaker’s Commentary, Apocrypha, p. 257 ff.

104 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

Hieronymus (Munich, 1879); Lagarde, Probe einer neuen Ausgabe

der lat. Ubersetzungen des A. T. (1870); A. Ceriani, Le recenstont
det LXX e la versione latina della Itala, 1886; L. Salembier,
Une page inédite de [histoire de la Vulgate, Amiens, 1890;
Bleek-Wellhausen (1893), p. 553 ff.; Scrivener-Miller, ii. p.
191 ff.; Gregory, p. 949 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, Zhe Old Latin and
the Itala, in Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1896); E. Nestle,
Urtext, pp. 84 ff. [specially valuable for the bibliography of the
Latin versions]; H. A. A. Kennedy, Zhe Old Latin Versions,
in Hastings’ D. ZB. iil. pp. 47—62.

2. THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

The tradition of St Mark’s episcopate at Alexandria’ may
be taken as evidence, so far as it goes, of the early planting of
the Church in that city. The first converts were doubtless, as
at Rome, Greek-speaking Jews, descendants of the old Jewish
settlers?, and their Greek proselytes ; and the first extension of
the movement was probably amongst the Greek population
of the towns on the sea-coast of the Mediterranean. As it
spread to the interior, to the villages of the Delta, to Memphis,
Oxyrhynchus, Panopolis, and eventually to Thebes, it en-
countered native Egyptians who spoke dialects of the Egyptian
tongue*. How soon they were evangelised there is no direct
evidence to shew, but the process may have begun shortly
after the Gospel reached Alexandria. The native Church
retained its own tongue, and in the fourth and fifth centuries
Greek was still unknown to many of the monks and eccle-
siastics of Egypt. Christianity however is probably responsible
for either introducing or spreading the use of a new system of

1 See Gospel acc. to St Mark, p. xiv.f. The Clementine Homilies (i.
8 ff.) attribute the foundation of the Alexandrian Church to Barnabas. But
a yet earlier beginning is possible. In Acts xviii. 24 cod. D reads ᾿Αλεξ-
avdpeds...ds ἦν κατηχημένος ἐν TH πατρίδι τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, on which
Blass (Acta app. p. 201) remarks: ‘‘itaque iam tum (id quod sine testi-
monio suspicandum erat) in Aegyptum quoque nova religio permanaverat.”

2 Acts ii. g f. of κατοικοῦντες... Αἴγυπτον. 70. vi. ο τινὲς ἐκ τῆς συναγω-

γῆς τῆς λεγομένης... Αλεξανδρέων.
3 Cf. what is said of St Anthony in the Vita Antoniz (Migne, P. GC.

XXxVi. 944 56:).

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 105

writing with characters which are chiefly of Greek origin’.
This writing, known as Coptic—a corruption of Αἰγύπτιος---ἰ5
found with some variations in all MS. fragments of the
Egyptian versions of the Old and New Testaments.

The analogy of the Old Latin would lead us to suppose (as
Bp Lightfoot remarks’) that no long interval passed between
the acceptance of Christianity by any large number of native
Egyptians, and the first attempts to translate the Scriptures
into the Egyptian tongue. ‘We should probably not be
exaggerating if we placed one or both of the principal Egyp-
tian versions, the Bohairic and the Sahidic, or at least parts of
them, before the close of the second century.” The Bishop is
writing with only the New Testament in view, but his argu-
ment applies equally to the Old. His view is on the whole
supported by Dr Hort*, Ciasca*, and Mr A. Ὁ. Headlam’:
but Mr Forbes Robinson, following Guidi, produces reasons for
regarding it as ‘not proven,’ and prefers to say that “historical
evidence...on the whole, points to the third century as the
period when the first Coptic translation was made.” “ But
this view,” he adds, ‘“‘can only be regarded as tentative. In
the light of future discoveries it may have to be modified®.”
_ The plurality of the Egyptian versions is well ascertained.
Perhaps the geographical form of Egypt gave special oppor-
tunities for the growth of popular dialects; certain it is that
increased knowledge of the language has added to the dialectic
complications with which the Coptic scholar has to struggle’.

1 Of the 31 letters of the Coptic alphabet 7 only (uj, “1, S, 9, 5, S, t)
are not from the Greek. On the pre-Christian systems see Clem. strom.
v. 4 οἱ map Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι πρῶτον μὲν πάντων...ἐκμανθάνουσι τὴν
ἐπιστολογραφικὴν καλουμένην (the Demotic), δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἱερατικὴν...
ὑστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν ἱερογλυφικήν.

2 Scrivener- Miller, ii. p. 97. ᾿

3 Intr. to N. T. in Greek, p. 85.

4 Sacr. bibl. fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, i. p. viii.

> Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 105 f.

§ Hastings, D. 8. i. p. 672.
7 The Demotic, as it is known to us, appears to present no dialectic

106 Axcient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

It was in these popular dialects that the translations of the
Bible were made. “ Christianity...was in Egypt a great popular
movement...the Scriptures were translated, not into the literary
language, but into that of the people; and the copies of these
translations in each locality reflected the local peculiarities of
speech.” Fragments of Biblical versions have been found in
the Bohairic’, Sahidic, and Middle Egyptian dialects. The
Bohairic dialect was spoken in Lower, the Sahidic in Upper,
Egypt, and the Middle Egyptian in the intermediate province
of Memphis. Some authorities speak of two other dialects,
the Fayumic and Akhmimic, assigning to them certain Biblical
fragments which are regarded by others as belonging to the
Middle Egyptian.

Translations of books of the Old Testament into these
Egyptian dialects were naturally made from the Alexandrian
Greek version, and, if we may judge from the extensive use of
the Old Testament in early Christian teaching, there is no
reason to doubt that they were translated at as early a date as
the Gospels and Epistles, if not indeed before them. Portions
of the Old Testament exist in each of the Egyptian dialects.
Hyvernat mentions fragments of Isaiah, Lamentations and
Ep. of Jeremiah in Fayumic and Middle Egyptian, and of
Exodus, Sirach, 2 Macc., and each of the Minor Prophets in
Akhmimic’; in Bohairic he enumerates 6 MSS. of the Penta-
teuch, 14 of the Psalms, 5 of Proverbs, 3 of Job, 4 of the
Minor Prophets, 5 of Isaiah, 3 of Jeremiah, 4 of Daniel, and

variation, perhaps because the specimens which have reached us were all
the work of the single class—the scribes: see Hyvernat, Etude sur les
versions Coptes in Revue Biblique, v. 3, Ῥ. 429; A. C. Headlam in
Scrivener-Miller, p. 105.

1 Formerly known as the Memphitic, a name which might be more
appropriately applied to the form of Middle Egyptian current at Memphis.
‘Bohairic’ is derived from e/-Bohairvah, a district S. of Alexandria.
‘Sahidic,’ also called Thebaic, is from es-sa‘td= Upper Egypt. On some
characteristics of the several dialects see Hyvernat, p. 431.

2 Cf. Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, p. 2.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 107

one MS. of Ezekiel ; in Sahidic, though few complete MSS. of
any Biblical book have survived, there is a large number of
extant fragments representing most of the canonical books and
certain of the non-canonical (the two Wisdoms, the Ep. of
Jeremiah, and the Greek additions to Daniel).

The following list gives the more important publications
which contain portions of the Old Testament in the Egyptian
versions.

BOHAIRIC. Ὁ. Wilkins, Quingue libri Moysts, 1731; La-
garde, Der Pentateuch hoptisch, 1867; Bruchstiicke der kopt.

Ubersetzungen des A. T. in Orientalia i. 1879. The Psalter has
been edited by R. Tuki, 1744, J. L. Ideler, 1837, Schwartze,
1848, Lagarde, Psalterii. versio Memphitica, Gottingen, 1875,
F. Rossi, Cimgue manoscrittt &c., 1894; Job by H. Tattam,
1846; the Prophets by Tattam (Prophetae minores, 1836, Proph.
matores, 1852).

SAHIDIC. Lagarde, Aegyftiaca, 1883; Ciasca, Sacr. 6261.
Jragm. Coptosahidica Muset Borgtant, 1885—9; Amélineau,
Fragments coptes in Recuetl v. (1884), and Fragments de la version
thébaine, ib. vii.—x. (1886—g) ; the same scholar has edited Job
in Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1887; O. v. Lemm,
Bruchstiicke, 1885, Sahidische Bibelfragmente, 1890; Krall, Mit-
thetlungen, 1887; F. Rossi, Papiri Copiz, 1889, Un nuovo codice,
1893; Maspéro, Fragments de Ancien Testament in Mémotres
publiés par les membres de la mission arch. francaise au Caire,
vi., 1892; E. A. Budge, The earliest known Coptic Psalter, 1898 ;
N. Peters, Dze sahidisch-koptische Ubersetzung a. Buches Eccle-
Stasticus...untersucht, 1898.

MIDDLE EGYPTIAN, &c. Tuki, Rudimenta linguae Cofptae,
1778; Quatremére, Recherches sur la langue et la littérature de
Egypte, 1808; Zoega, Catal. codd. Copt., 1810; Engelbreth,
fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica V. et N. T., 1811; Von Lemm,
Mittelagyptische Fragmente, 1885; Krall, MWitthetlungen, 1887 ;
Bouriant in M/émotres de [Institut égyptien 11., 1889, and in
Mémoires publiés par &c. vi. 1; Steindorff, die Apokalypse des
Elias, p. 2 ff. (Leipzig, 1899).

It may reasonably be expected that the Egyptian versions
of the Old Testament, when they have been more fully
recovered and submitted to examination by experts, will prove

108 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

to be of much importance for the criticism of the text of
the Lxx. Ceriani’ has shewn that the Greek text of Cod.
Marchalianus agrees generally with that which underlies
the Bohairic version of the Prophets, whilst both are in har-
mony with the text which is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria. A
German scholar’, starting with the Bohairic Prophets, finds that
their text is similar to that of the Codex Alexandrinus, the
Codex Marchalianus, a series of cursive Greek MSS., some of
which had been recognised by Cornill* as Hesychian (22, 23, 26,
36, 49, 42, 49, 51, 62, 86, 91, 95, 97, 106, 114, 130, 147, 153;
185, 228, 233, 238, 240, 310, 311), and the Greek columns of
the Complutensian Polyglott. Of the Sahidic fragments, those
which belong to the book of Job yield a pre-Origenic text’,
whilst the Sahidic Isaiah is distinctly Hexaplaric, and traces of
the influence of the Hexapla are also to be found in Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes and Ezekiel, although in varying degrees. On the
whole it is natural to expect the Hesychian recension to be
specially reflected in Egyptian versions. But other influences
may have been at work®, and much remains to be done before
these versions can be securely used in the work of recon-
structing the text of the Greek Old Testament ®.
LITERATURE, Quatremére, Recherches ; Zoega, Catalogus ;
L. Stern, Koftische Grammatik, 1880; Kopten, Koptische
Sprache u. Litteratur, 1886; Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 91 ff.

(Jj. B. Lightfoot and A. C. Headlam); Gregory, Jrolegg.,
p. 859; J.P. P. Matin, 2, ‘partie theor, .p. 350 ts

H. Hyvernat, Etude sur les versions coptes de la Bible in Revue
bibligue, Vv. 3, 4, vi. 1; E. Nestle, Urtext, Ὁ, 144 ff.

1 See O. 7. in Greek, iii. p. ix.

2 A. Schulte in 7heol. Quartalschrift, 1894-5; see Hyvernat, p. 69.

8 Ezechiel, p. 66 ff.

4 Cf. Hatch, Zssays, p. 215 ff.; Dillmann, Zextkritisches zum Buche
Zjob, p- 43 Burkitt, O. 2. and tala, p. 8; Kenyon, Our Bible and the
ancient MSS., p. 751.

5 Hyvernat, p. 71.

9; See the remarks of Εν, Robinson in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible,
1. O75.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 109

3. THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.

Ethiopia is said to have been evangelised in the fourth
century from Tyre. The Tyrian missionaries were probably of
Greek speech’, and brought with them the Greek Bible. But
apart from this, the contiguity of Ethiopia to Egypt, and the
circumstance that the first Bishop of Auxume received conse-
cration at Alexandria, create an @ priori probability that any
early translations from the Old Testament into Ethiopic were
based upon the Septuagint, whether immediately or through
the Coptic versions.

This conclusion is on the whole supported by the character
of the version. The Ethiopic Bible presents phenomena
which are not easily reconciled with the hypothesis of a Greek
origin. These appear, however, to be limited to a certain
group of MSS. Dillmann, who at one time had explained the
numerous transliterations and other approaches to the Hebrew
by assuming that the translators worked upon a Hexaplaric
text, ultimately found cause to classify the MSS. under three
heads, (1) those which on the whole represent the text of the
LXx. on which he supposed the version to have been based ;
(2) those of a later recension—the most numerous class—cor-
rected by other MSS. of the Lxx.; (3) those in which the
original version has been revised from the Hebrew’. Lagarde
suggested that the existing Ethiopic version was translated.
from the Arabic, as late as the fourteenth century, and main-
tained that in any case the printed texts of the Ethiopic Old
Testament depend upon MSS. which are too late and too bad
to furnish a secure basis for the employment of this version in

1 Charles (art. Ethiopic Version, in Hastings’ D. B. i. p. 792) states
that “the Abyssinians first received Christianity through Aramaean
missionaries.’’ But Tyre in the fourth century was as Greek as Alexandria
and Antioch.

2 Nestle, Urtext, p. 148. Loisy, Aistotre critique, 1. 11. p. 231-

110 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

the reconstruction of the Septuagint’. The latter statement is
possibly not far from the truth, but there appears to be no
sufficient reason for doubting the influence of the Greek Bible’.

The Ethiopic version of the Old Testament contains all the
books of the Alexandrian canon except 1—4 Maccabees,
together with certain apocrypha which are not found in MSS.
of the Lxx. (Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, 4 Esdras, &c.). A
considerable part of it has appeared in print. Dillmann edited
the Octateuch and the four books of Kingdoms (1853-71),
and the deuterocanonical books (1894); the book of Joel
appeared in Merx, Die Prophetie des Joels, the book of Jonah
in W. Wright’s Jonah in four Semitic versions (London, 1857).
The Psalms were printed by Ludolf (1701), Rodiger (1815),
Dorn (1825), and Jeremiah, Lamentations and Malachi by
Bachmann (1893); Bachmann also edited the Dodecapro-
pheton, and part of Isaiah.

Lists of the MSS. may be seen in Wright, Ethzopic MSS. of
the British Museum (London, 1878); Zotenberg, Catalogue des
MSS. éthiopiens de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris, 1877);
D’Abbadie, Catalogue raisonné de MSS. éthiopiens (Paris, 1859) ;
Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. tn Bibliotheca Bodletana
(Oxford, 1848), and Adessinische Handschr. d. k. Biblioth. zu
Berlin; Miller, Aethiop. Handschr. der k. Hofbtblioth. in Wien
(ZDMG. xvi. p. 554). For fuller information as to this Version
see Εἰ, Pratorius, Urtext, p. 147 ff.

4. THE ARABIC VERSION.

The Arabic Old Testament printed in the Paris and
London Polyglotts is a composite work, the Hexateuch being
a translation from the Hebrew, and the books of Judges,
Ruth, 1 Regn. i.—z2 Regn. xii. 17, Nehemiah 1.—ix. 27, and Job
from the Peshitta; the Septuagint has supplied the basis for

1 Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der gr. Ubersetzung d. A. T., p. 283

cf. Materialen, i. p. iil. ι '
2 Charles, 4. σι: “1 is unquestionable that our version was made in the

main from the Greek.”

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 111

the other poetical books and for the Prophets’. Some of the
MSS. exhibit in certain books a translation which has come
from the Lxx. through the Coptic; the book of Job in this
version has been published by Lagarde (Psalterium Job Pro-
verbia arabice, GOttingen, 1876)”.

The Arabic version directly derived from the Lxx. is said
to exhibit in the Prophets a text akin to that of Cod. A
(Ryssel, in ZA W. 1885, p. 102 ff., 158). It shews traces

of Hexaplaric influence (H. Hyvernat, in Vigouroux, D. 8. i.
Ὁ: 846).

EDITIONS of Arabic versions of the Septuagint. Besides
the Polyglotts (Paris, 1645; London, 1652), mention may be
made of the Psalters published at Genoa, 1516; Rome, 1614 and
1619; Aleppo, 1706 ;. London (S.P.C.K.), 1725. In W. Wright’s
Book of Jonah the Arabic is from a MS. in the Bodleian (see
p. vii.). Cf. H. Hyvernat, of. czz.

MSS. Lists of MSS. of the Arabic versions of the Old
Testament will be found in the Preface to Holmes and Parsons,
vol. i.; Slane’s Catalogue des MSS. Arabes de la Bibl. nat.; Mrs
M. D. Gibson’s Studia Stnattica, 111. (London, 1894), Catalogue of
Arabic MSS. at Sinai (codd. 1—67). Cf. Hyvernat, op. czz.

LITERATURE. Schnurrer, Aibliotheca Arabica, 1780; H.E. G.
Paulus, Bodletana specimina verstonum Pent. Arab., 1789;
Eichhorn, Zzulectung, ὃ 275 ff.; R. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.;
Rodiger, De origine et indole Arab. libr. V. T. interpretationis
(Halle, 1829). Among more recent works reference may be
made to Cornill, /zechzel, Ὁ. 49f.; Loisy, Azst. cr7z. I. 11.:p. 238 ;
Fritzsche-Nestle in Urtext, p. 150 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, art. Arabic
Versions, in Hastings’ D. &. i. p. 136 ff.; H. Hyvernat, of. 622

5. THE SyRIAC VERSIONS.

According to Moses bar-Cephas (t 913), there are two
Syriac versions of the Old Testament—the Peshitta, translated

1 Loisy, Ast. crit., I. ii. p. 239. Mrj Burkitt in Hastings’ D. BZ.
(i. p. 137) writes ‘‘J(udges), S(amuel), K(ings), and Ch(ronicles), are all
from the Peshitta.”

* Lagarde gives for the Psalter four texts, viz. those published at Rome
(1614), Paris (1645), Ruzhayya (1612), Aleppo (1706); for Job, besides the
versions mentioned in the text, that of the Paris Polyglott.

112 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

from the Hebrew in the time of King Abgar, and the version
made from the Septuagint by Paul, Bishop of Tella. This
statement is neither complete nor altogether to be trusted,
but it may serve as a convenient point of departure for a
summary of the subject.

(1) The origin of the Peshitta is still as obscure as when
Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote: ἡρμήνευται δὲ ταῦτα εἰς μὲν τὴν
τῶν Σύρων παρ᾽ ὅτου δήποτε, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγνωσται μέχρι τῆς τήμερον
ὅστις ποτὲ οὗτός ἐστιν. That the translation on the whole was
made from the Hebrew is the verdict of modern scholars as it
was that of Moses bar-Cephas. Yet certain books display the
influence of the Lxx. While “the Pentateuch follows the
Hebrew text and the Jewish exegesis, Isaiah and the twelve
Minor Prophets contain much which is from the Lxx., and
the influence of the Greek version appears to have been felt
also in the Psalter*.” From the first the Peshitta seems to
have included the non-canonical books of the Alexandrian
Bible except 1 Esdras and Tobit, ‘“‘and their diction agrees
with that of the canonical books among which they are
inserted *.”

(2) The Syriac version ascribed to Paul, Bishop of Tella-
dhe-Mauzelath (Constantine) in Mesopotamia, was a literal
translation of the Lxx. of the Hexapla, in which the Origenic
signs were scrupulously retained. A note in one of the rolls
of this version assigns it to the year 616—7; the work is said
to have been produced at Alexandria under the auspices of
Athanasius, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, who with five
of his suffragans had gone thither to visit the Alexandrian
Patriarch. Paul of Tella and Thomas of Harkel appear to
have been of the party, and their visit in Alexandria led to

1 Migne, P. G., Ixvi. 241; cf. 2b. 252 f., 263, 466 ff., 492 ff.
2 Nestle in Urtext, p. 230; cf. Bleek-Wellhausen, pp. 558—560.
3 Gwynn, D. C. B., iv. p. 434.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 113

the translation of the entire Greek Bible into Syriac, the New
Testament having been undertaken by Thomas, while Paul
worked upon the Old’.

The version of Paul of Tella, usually called the Syro-
Hexaplar, was first made known to Europe by Andreas Masius
(Andrew Du Maes, { 1573). In editing the Greek text
of Joshua he used a Syriac MS. which contained part of
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther,
Judith, and part of Tobit, in this translation. The codex
which he employed has disappeared, but the Ambrosian
library at Milan possesses another, possibly a second volume
of the lost MS., which contains the poetical and prophetic
books, in the order Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song
of Solomon, the two Wisdoms, the twelve Prophets, Jeremiah
(with Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle), Daniel (with
Susanna and Bel), Ezekiel, Isaiah. Portions of the historical
books of the Syro-Hexaplar® have been discovered among the
Nitrian MSS. of the British Museum, and a catena, also at the
Museum, contains fragments of Chronicles and the books of
Esdras, while the Paris Library contributes 4 Kingdoms.
Norberg edited Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 1787; Daniel was
published by Bugati in 1788 and the Psalms in 1820;
Middeldorpf completed the prophetical and poetical books in
his edition of 1835, and in 1861 Ceriani added Baruch,
Lamentations, and the Ep. of Jeremiah. Of the historical
books Judges and Ruth were published by Skat Rordam in
1861, and Genesis and Exodus (i.—xxxili. 2) by Ceriani (AZon.
sacr. et prof. 11.}, who has also given to the world the Milan
fragments in JZon. vol. vil.

The Hexapla, Tetrapla, and occasionally the Heptapla, are

' Gwynn, Paulus Tellensts and Thomas Harklensis, in D.C. B., iv.
pp- 266 ff., τοις ff.

2 Viz., parts of Genesis and Joshua, half of Numbers, nearly the whole
of Judges, Ruth, and 3 Kingdoms, and Exodus complete.

Sy FS 8

114 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

mentioned as the sources of the text in the subscriptions to
the books of the Syro-Hexaplar. These subscriptions were
doubtless translated with the rest of the Greek archetypes, but
they shew the character of the copies employed by the trans-
lators. The version is servile to such an extent as sometimes
to violate the Syriac idiom’. It is obvious that this extreme
fidelity to the Greek, while it must have hindered the use of
the version in the Monophysite churches of Syria, is of vast
advantage to the Biblical critic. It places in his hands an
exact reflexion of the Hexaplaric Lxx. as it was read at
Alexandria at the beginning of the 7th century, derived
ultimately from the Hexapla and Tetrapla through the re-
cension of Eusebius. Thus it supplements our scanty stock
of Greek Hexaplaric MSS., and indeed forms our chief
authority for the text of Origen’s revision. In the case of one
of the canonical books the version of Paul of Tella renders
even greater service. One of the Greek texts of Daniel—that
which Origen regarded as the true Septuagintal text—has
survived only in a single and relatively late MS. The
Syro-Hexaplar here supplies another and earlier authority,
which enables us to check the testimony of the Chigi Greek.

(3) Other Syriac versions made from the Greek.

(2) Fragments of a Syriac version in the Palestinian
dialect have been printed by Land, Axecdota Syriaca, iv.
(Leyden, 1875), J. R. Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mt
Sinat (London, 1890), G. H. Gwilliam, Anecdota Oxoniensia,
Semitic Series, I. v., ix. (Oxford, 1893—6), D. S. Margoliouth,
Liturgy of the Nile (London, 1897), and Mrs Lewis, Studia
Sinaitica, vi. (London, 1897). This version has been made
from the Lxx.; in the Books of Kings the text appears to

1 Field, Prolegg. in Hex., p. |xix., where many instances are produced.

2 The fragments in Studia Stnattica are accompanied by critical notes,

the work of Dr Nestle, in which they are carefully compared with the
Greek text (pp. xl.—lxxiv.).

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 115

be Lucianic (Anecd. Oxon. ix. p. 32); In the Greater Prophets,
it is in part at least Origenic (Studia Sinattica, pp. xvi., 1xiii.) ;
Job seems to have contained the interpolations from Theodotion
which are found in the extant Greek texts of that book’.

The following is a complete list of the Palestinian fragments
included in the publications mentioned above : Gen. 1, I—ill. 24,
Vi. Q—ix. 19, Xvill. I—5, 18—xix. 30, ΧΧΙΪ. I—19; Ex. viii. 22>—
xl. IO, xxvill. I—12; Num. iv. 46 f., 49—v. 2f., 4, 6,8; Deut. vi. 4
—16, vil. 25-26%, x. 12—xi. 28, xii. 23—xiv. 3; 2 Regn. 11. 1g—22;
3 Regn. ii. 10°—15, ix. 4—5?; Pss. vill. 2f., xxi. 2, 19, xxii. I, 5,
ἘΣ tt ΕΧΥΣ 2, A. Xxx, 2. OMXKIV. I, Ely XENI, 2.18, XE SOR 7,
xlili. 12—27, xliv.—xlvi., xlviii. 15 ff., xlix. 1—9, liv. 2, 22, lv. 7 ff,
Ivi. I—7, Ixiv. 2, 6, Ixviii. 2, 3, 22, Ixxvi. 2, 21, Ixxvii. 52—65,
Ixxxi., Ixxxii. I—10, Ixxxiv. 2, 8, Ixxxv. 1, 15 f., Ixxxvil.. 2, 5—7,
ce wake. Ὑ ΧΟ 2, xevil. I, Of, Cl. 2 ἔτ Prov. 1. 1-10, ix.
I—II; Job xvi. I—xvii. 16, xxl. I—34, xxli. 3—12; Sap. ix.
S—II, 14—x. 2; Amos ix. 5—14%, vill. 9—12; Mic. v. 2—5;
Joel i. 14—1ii. 27, iii. g—21; Jonah; Zech. ix. 9—15, xi. 11>—14;
Isa. iii. g>—15, vii. 10—16, viii. 8—xi. 16, ΧΙ]. I—6, xiv. 28—32,
XV. I—5, xxv. I—3%, xxxv. I—I0, xl. I—17, xlil. 5—10, 17—xlili.
21, xliv. 2—7, 1. 4—9, lil. 13--[111. 12, ΙΧ. I—22, [ΧΙ]. I—11, Ixiii.
I—7; Jer. xi. 18—202.

(4) Mention is made® of a version of the Greek Old
Testament attempted by the Nestorian Patriarch Mar Abbas
(A.D. 552). But notwithstanding the declared preference of
Theodore for the Lxx., the Nestorians have always used the
Peshitta, and there is no extant Nestorian version from the
Greek.

(c) Of Jacobite versions from the Lxx. there were several.
(1) Polycarp the chorepiscopus, who in the fifth century laboured
upon a translation of the New Testament under the auspices of
Philoxenus, the Monophysite Bishop of Mabug, is known to
have rendered the Greek Psalter into Syriac. The margin of
the Syro-Hexaplar* mentions a Philoxenian ‘edition’ of Isaiah,

1 Cf. Burkitt in Anecd. Oxon., Semitic ser., 1. ix. p. 44, and cf. Nestle’s
notes to Studia Sinaitica, vi.

* See Studia Sin., vi. p. xiv. f.

Bickell, Conspectus rei Syr. lit., p..g; cf. Ebedjesu in Assemani, iii. 71.

* Field, Hexafla, ii. p. 448.

8—z2

[16 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

to which two fragments printed by Ceriani’ from the British
Museum MS. Add. 17106 are believed to belong. ‘The text
of these fragments agrees on the whole with that of the Lucianic
MSS. of the Prophets. (2) Another Monophysite, Jacob of
Edessa, applied himself in 704—5 to the revision of the Syriac
Old Testament, using for the purpose the Hexaplaric Lxx.’,
and the fragments of the other Greek translations. Some
books of this revised version exist in MS. at London and
Paris*, and a few specimens have been printed?*.

(4) From Melito downwards the Greek fathers refer
occasionally to the Greek renderings of an interpreter who is
called 6 Σύρος. The student will find in Field’s prolegomena a
full and learned discussion of the question who this Syrian
interpreter was. Field inclines to the opinion that he was a
bilingual Syrian, of Greek origin, who translated into Greek
from the Peshitta®.

EDITIONS. PESHITTA. Lee, V. 7: Syrvzace (London, 1823);
O. and N. T., 1826. A complete Syriac Bible has recently been
published by the Dominicans of Mosul (()1887—91, ©) 1888—g2).

SYRO-HEXAPLAR. A. Masius, /osuae-historia tllustrata
(1574); M. Norberg, Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris (1787); C.
Bugati, Danzel (1788), Psalmz (1820); H. Middledorpf, cod.
Syrohexapl., lib. IV. Reg. e cod. Paris. Iesaias &c. e cod.
Mediol. (1835): Skat Rordam, /z6r¢ [udicum et Ruth sec. Syro-
hexapl. (1861); P. de Lagarde, V. 7. ab Origene recensiti frag-
menta ap. Syros servata v, (1880), and V. 7. Graect in sermonem
Syrorum verst fragm. vit. (in his last work Bzbliothecae Syriacae
...guae ad philologiam sacram pertinent, 1892). Ceriani has
published the contents of the London MS. in Monumenta sacra

1 Mon. sacr. et prof. v.; cf. Gwynn in D. C. 8. iv. p. 433.

2 Gwynn, D. C. B. iii.

3; Regn. i. r—3 Regn. ii. 11, and Isaiah are in the London MSS. Ix.,
Ixi. (Wright, Catalogue, p. 37ff.), and the Pentateuch and Daniel are
preserved at Paris.

4 See Ladvocat, Fournal des savants, for 1765; Eichhorn, Bibliothek,
ii. p. 270; De Sacy, WVotzces et extrazts, iv. p. 648 ff.; Ceriani, Mon. sacr.
et prof. V. 1. I.

: 5 On the other hand see Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 7, note; and Bleek-

Wellhausen (1893), Ρ- 560.

|

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 117

et profana, ii.,and those of the Milan MS. in vol. vu. (1874) of
the same series}.

LITERATURE. 6. Bickell, Consfectus ret Syrorum literartae
(1871); Field, Hexapla, τ. p. Ixvii. sqq. (1875); W. Wright, Syzzac
literature in Encycl. Britannica, xxii. (1887); E. Nestle, Lz¢ttera-
tura Syriaca (1888), and Urtext (1897), p. 227 ff.; Scrivener-
Miller, ii. p. 6 ff.; Gregory, p. 807 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, /troduc-
tion (p. théor.), p. 97 ff.; Loisy, Histoire critique 1. il. p. 234 f.

6. THE GOTHIC VERSION.

About the year 350 a translation of the Bible into the
Gothic tongue was made by Ulfilas (Wulfila)*, the descendant
of a Cappadocian captive who had been brought up among the
Goths in Dacia, and was in 341 consecrated Bishop of the Gothic
nation, which was then beginning to embrace Arian Christianity.
According to Philostorgius he translated the whole of the Old
Testament except the books of Kingdoms, which he omitted as
likely to inflame the military temper of the Gothic race by
their records of wars and conquests (Philostorg. Zoc. cit.: μετέ-
φρασεν eis τὴν αὐτῶν φωνὴν τὰς γραφὰς ἁπάσας πλήν ye δὴ τῶν
Βασιλειῶν ἅτε τῶν μὲν πολέμων ἱστορίαν ἐχουσῶν, τοῦδε ἔθνους
ὄντος φιλοπολέμου). Unfortunately only a few scanty frag-
ments of the Gothic Old Testament have been preserved, i.e.,
some words from Gen. v. 3—30, Ps. 111. 2—3, 2 Esdr. xv. 13—
16, xXVi. 14—xvil. 3, Xvll. 13—45. With the exception of the
scrap from Genesis, they are derived from palimpsest fragments
belonging to the Ambrosian Library which were discovered by
Mai in 1817 and subsequently published at Milan by Mai and
Castiglione; and they are printed in the great collection of
Gabelentz and Loebe (Udflas: V. et Δ. Testamentt...frag-
menta, Lipsiae, 1843) and in Migne /.Z. xviii.; a more recent
edition is that of Massmann (U/filas: die hetligen Schriften alten
u. neuen Bundes tn gothischer Sprache...Stuttgart, 1895—7).

1 For the Apocryphal books see Lagarde, Lzbrz V. 7. apocr. Syrtace,

and Bensly-Barnes, Zhe fourth book of Maccabees in Syriac (Camb., 1895).
ΦΘΌΟΟΙ ΠΤ ν 52, Lneodoret iv: 5.7. hhilostorg.! 11315.

118 Anczent Versions based upon the Septuagint.

Lagarde (Librorum V. T: canonicorum pars t., p. xiv., 1883)
shews by an examination of the Esdras fragments that Ulfilas
probably used MSS. of the Lucianic recension, and the same
view is held by A. Kisch, Der Septuaginta-Codex des Ulfilas
(Monatschrift f. Gesch. u. W. des Judenthums, 1873), and
F. Kauffmann, Beitrdge zur Quellenkritik d. gothischen Bibel-
libersetzung (Z. f. d. Phil. 1896). Ulfilas was in Constantinople
for some time about 340, and his MSS. of the Lxx. were
doubtless obtained in that city, which according to Jerome
was one of the headquarters of the Lucianic Lxx. (‘“‘Con-
stantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria
probat ”).

7. THE ARMENIAN VERSION.

Armenian writers of the fifth century ascribe the inception
of the Armenian Bible to Mesrop (354—441) and his associates.
The book of Proverbs was the first translated, whether because
it stood first in the volume’ on which the translators worked, or
because its gnomic character gave it a special importance in
their eyes. The work is said to have been begun at Edessa,
but MSS. were afterwards obtained from Constantinople; and
Moses of Khoren, a nephew and pupil of Mesrop, was
despatched to Alexandria to study Greek in order to secure “a
more accurate articulation and division” * of the text. Moses
indeed affirms that the earliest translations of the O.T. into
Armenian were from the Syriac, and his statement receives
some confirmation from the mention of Edessa as the place of
origin, and from the circumstance that Syriac was the Church-
language of Armenia before the introduction of the Armenian
alphabet*. On the other hand the existing Armenian version

1 So F. C. Conybeare (Hastings, i. p. 152). In Scrivener-Miller, ii.
p- 151, he suggests that the earlier books had been rendered previously.

7 On this see Conybeare, Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 153.

3 See Dr Salmon in D. Ὁ. B., iii. p. go8.

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 110

is clearly Septuagintal. It fits the Greek of the Lxx. “as a
glove the hand that wears it’’; keeping so close to the Greek
that it “has almost the same value for us as the Greek text
itself from which (the translator) worked would possess’.” But,
as Lagarde has pointed out’, the printed text is untrustworthy,
and the collation made for Holmes and Parsons cannot be
regarded as satisfactory. A fresh collation will be made for
the larger edition of the Cambridge Septuagint’.

The order of the books of the O.T. in Armenian MSS., as
given by Conybeare‘ (Octateuch, 1—4 Regn., 1—2 Paralipp.,
1 and 2 Esdr., Esther, Judith, Tobit, 1—3 Macc., Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Job’, Isaiah, the
Minor Prophets, Jeremiah, with Baruch and Lamentations,
Daniel, Ezekiel) is on the whole consistent with the grouping
found in the oldest Greek authorities®, and seems to point to
the use by the translators of good early codices.

MSS. Few codices of the entire Bible are earlier than the
13th century; one at Edschmiatzin belongs to the year 1151.
Holmes assigns his Arm. 3 to A.D. 1063, but according to Cony-
beare it is a MS. of the last century.

EDITIONS. Venice (Psalter), 1565; Amsterdam, 1666; Con-
stantinople, 1705; Venice, 1805 (the first edition which is of any
critical value, by J. Zohrab); Venice, 1859—60 (by the Mechitar-
ist fathers of San Lazzaro).

LITERATURE ΚΕ. Holmes, Praef. ad Pent.; Ἐς C. Conybeare
in Scrivener-Miller, ii. 148 ff. and in Hastings’ D. B., δε;

1 Conybeare, of. cit., p. 151 f. He attributes the composite character
of the Armenian text (of which he gives instances) to Hexaplaric influences.

2 Genesis Gr., p. 18.

3 Mr McLean, who has collated the greater part of the Octateuch,
informs me that ‘‘the Armenian shews a typical hexaplar text in Genesis
and Exodus, agreeing closely with the Syriaco-hexaplar version, and in
varying degrees with the MSS. that compose the hexaplar group.” ‘‘ The
hexaplar element (he adds) is much less in evidence in Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, but again appears strongly in Joshua, Judges, and
Ruth.”

5, OP.. Chlag' Dx 052; fe

5 In some MSS. Job precedes the Psalter.

© See Part II. c. 1.

120 Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint.

H. Hyvernat, in Vigouroux’ D. B.; C. R. Gregory, Prolegg. p.
012 ff.; J. P. P. Martin, /ztrod. (p. théor.), p. 323 ff.; E. Nestle in
Urtext, p. 155, where fuller bibliographical information will be

found.

8. THE GEORGIAN VERSION.

The origin of this version is obscure. According to Moses
of Khoren, the Georgian as well as the Armenian version was
the work of Mesrop. Iberia seems to have received the
Gospel early in the fourth century, if not before; but it may
have possessed no translation of the Scriptures until the move-
ment initiated in Armenia by Mesrop had communicated itself
to the neighbouring region. That the Georgian Old Testament
was based upon the Greek is said to be manifest from the
transliteration of Greek words which it contains.

MSS. A Psalter of cent. vii.—vill. is preserved at the monas-
tery of St Catherine’s, Mt Sinai, and at Athos there is a MS.,
dated 978, which originally contained the whole Bible, but has

lost Lev. xii.—Joshua. Both the Sinai library and the Patriarchal
library at Jerusalem are rich in Georgian MSS.

EDITIONS. The Georgian Bible was printed at Moscow in ©
1743 and at St Petersburg in 1816 and 1818; the Moscow edition
is said to have been adapted to the Russian Church Bible.

LITERATURE. F. C. Alter, w#ber Georgianische Litteratur
(Vienna, 1798); A. A. Tsagarelli, 42 account of the monuments
of Georgian Literature [in Russian], St Petersburg, 1886—94;
A. Khakhanow, Les 77.5.5. Georgiens de la Bibliotheque Nationale
ἃ Paris (without place or date, ? 1898).

9. THE SLAVONIC VERSION.

The Greek Bible was translated into Slavonic by the
brothers Cyril and Methodius, from whom in the ninth century
the Slavs received the faith. Of the Old Testament the
Psalter alone was finished before the death of Cyril, but
according to contemporary testimony Methodius brought the
work to completion. As a whole this original version no

Ancient Versions based upon the Septuagint. 121

longer exists, the codices having perished in the Tartar invasion
of the thirteenth century; and the fragments of the Old
Testament of Cyril and Methodius which are embedded in the
present Slavonic Bible are “‘so mixed up with later versions as
to be indistinguishable’.” The existing version has not been
made uniformly from the Greek. Esther was translated from
the Hebrew, while Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and certain
other books, were rendered from the Latin Vulgate in the
fifteenth century. On the other hand the Octateuch, the
books of Kingdoms, and the poetical books are from the
Greek, and some of them, especially the Octateuch, contain
old materials probably due, at least in part, to the work of Cyril
and Methodius.

A Psalter in the Glagolitic script, preserved at Sinai, has
been edited by Geitler (Agram, 1883); and there is a critical
edition of the Slavonic Psalter by Amphilochius (Moscow,
1879).

So far as the Slavonic Old Testament is based on the Lxx.,
its text is doubtless Lucianic; cf. Lagarde, Praef in Libr. V. T:
can. i. p. xv. “ni omnia fallunt Slavus nihil aliud vertit nisi
Luciani recensionem,” and Leskien in Urtext, p. 215, ‘‘dass im
allgemeinen der Kirchenslavischen Ubersetzung der griech.
Text der Lucianischen (Antiochenisch-Konstantinopolita-
nischen) Rezension zu Grunde liegt ist sicher.”

LITERATURE. The Russian authorities are given by Mr
Bebb in Scrivener- Miller, ii. p. 158. See also Gregory, Prolegg.

p. 1112 ff.; Professor Leskien of Leipzig in Urtext, p. 211 ff., and
the article in Ch. Quarterly Review cited above.

1 The Russian Bible, in Ch. Quart. Review, xii. 81 (Oct. 1895), p. 219.

CHAPTER V.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

THE great edition of the Septuagint published by Holmes
and Parsons ends with a complete list of the MSS. employed
(vol. v. ad fin., addenda). It enumerates 311 codices (1.—xIIL.,
14—311), of which I.—xIII., 23, 27, 39, 43, 156, 188, 190, 258,
262, are written in uncial letters, or partly so, while the rest
are in minuscule or cursive hands. Since 1827, the date of the
publication of the last volume of the Oxford edition, the list
of available codices or fragments has been largely increased,
owing partly to the researches and publications of Tischendorf,
partly to the progress which has recently been made in the
examination and cataloguing of Eastern libraries, and the
discovery in Egypt of fragments of papyrus bearing Biblical
texts. In this chapter an effort has been made to present
the student with a complete list of all the MSS. which have
been or are being used by editors of the Lxx., and of the
important fragments so far as they are known to us. It is,
however, impossible to guarantee either the exhaustiveness or
the correctness in regard to minor details of information which
has been brought together from many sources and cannot
be verified by enquiry at first hand.

SYSTEMS OF NOTATION. Two systems have been used to
denote the uncial MSS. Holmes employed Roman numerals;
Lagarde, the capitals of the Roman alphabet!. For the cursive
MSS. Holmes used Arabic numerals, beginning with 14; but,
as we have seen, several uncials were allowed to take rank
among them. Later scholars have for the most part retained

1 Lagarde’s CEHKRSUYZ were unknown to the Oxford editors.
Greek capitals have been used in the Cambridge manual LXx. for a few
uncials not mentioned by Lagarde.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 123

this method of notation for the cursives, excepting in the case
of a few groups which are supposed to represent a particular
recension ; thus Lagarde adopted the symbols (4 m 2 2 for the
Lucianie MSS. 82, 93, 118, 441, whilst Cornill with a similar
object substituted the small letters of the Greek alphabet for the
Arabic numerals?. Uniformity in this matter can scarcely be
expected until the cursive codices have been thoroughly ex-
amined and catalogued; meanwhile it is sufficient to call atten-
tion to the variety of practice which exists.

Manuscripts of the Lxx., whether uncial or cursive, rarely
contain the whole of the Greek Old Testament. There are
some notable exceptions to the general rule (e.g. A, B,C, S=8,
64, 68, 106, 122, 131), and the number of these exceptions may
be increased by adding MSS. which have been broken up into
two or more separate codices (e.g. G, N+V). But the majority
of the copies seem never to have included more than a par-
ticular book (as Genesis, or the Psalms, with or without the
liturgical wdac), or a particular group of books such as the Pen-
tateuch (7 mevtdtevxos*) or the Octateuch (7 ὀκτάτευχος = Gen.
—Ruth), the Historical Books (1 Regn.—2 Esdr., Esth., Judith,
Tobit), the three or five books ascribed to Solomon, the Minor
Prophets (τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον), the Major Prophets (οἱ τέσσαρες),
or the Prophets complete (τὸ ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον). Larger com-
binations are also found, e.g. Genesis—Tobit, the Poetical
Books as a whole, or the Poetical Books with the Prophets.

In reference to the date of their execution, the uncial MSS.
of the Lxx. range from the third century to the tenth, and the
cursives from the ninth to the sixteenth. Their present distri-
bution may be seen from the descriptions; an analysis of
the list of Holmes and Parsons gives the following general
results: Italy, 129; Great Britain and Ireland, 54; France, 36;
Austria, 26; Russia, 23; Germany, 13; Spain, 7; Holland, 6;
Switzerland, 6; Denmark, 4. This summary conveys a general

Shite. V. T.1taus, pars.2., p; ve sq.

2 Exzechiel, p. 19 ff.

3 Cf. Orig. 22 Joann, t. xiii. 26, Epiph. de mens. et pond. 4. Penta-
teuchus occurs in Tertullian adv. Marc. i. το.

124 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

idea of the proportion in which the MSs. of the Lxx. were dis-
tributed among European countries, Greece excepted, at the
beginning of the nineteenth century. But the balance will
be considerably disturbed if we add the acquisitions of
Tischendorf and other discoverers, and the treasures of the
libraries at Athens, Athos, Patmos, Smyrna, Jerusalem, and
Mount Sinai, which are now within the reach of the critical
student.
I. Uncrat MSS.

The following table of the Uncial MSS. may be found

convenient. A detailed account of each will follow.
Symbols. Name of Codex. Century. Present locality.
H.-P. Lagarde.
III A Alexandrinus ν London
II B Vaticanus iv Rome
ς Ephraemi v__‘ Paris
I D Cottonianus ν London
E Bodleianus ix—x Oxford
VII F Ambrosianus ν Milan
IV+V G Sarravianus v Leyden, »:Paris))) St
Petersburg
H Petropolitanus vi St Petersburg
MEI b=13; ἢ Bodleianus ix Oxford
K Lipsiensis vil Leipzig
VI L Vindobonensis v—vi Vienna
x M Coislinianus vii Paris
XI N Basilianus vlii—ix Rome
Vcr Gr Dublinensis vi Dublin
XII [9) Marchalianus vi Rome
R Veronensis vl Verona
S=8 Sinaiticus iv Leipzig, St Petersburg
262 νὴ Turicensis vii Zurich
6 Londinensis vii London
23 ν Venetus viii—ix Venice
43 W Parisiensis ero k Ones
258 Χ Vaticanus ix Rome
hg Taurinensis ie © Pore
Z4-¢ Fragmenta Tischendorfiana
ΤῸ Cryptoferratensis vili—ix
A Bodleianus iv—v Oxford
II Petropolitanus viii—ix St Petersburg
1 For IX=P see under Cursive MSS. (H.-P. 294).

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 125

(A) Complete Bibles.

A (III). Copex ALEXANDRINUS. British Museum, Royal
I. D. v.—vui.

A MS. of the O. and N. Testaments, with lacunae. The
O.T. is defective in the following places: Gen. xiv. 14—17, xv.
I—5, 16—19, xvi. 6—g (leaf torn across and the lower portion
lost); 1 Regn. xil. 20—xiv. 9 (leaf missing); Ps. xlix. 19—Ixxix.
10 (nine leaves missing). Slighter defects, due to the tearing of
leaves, occur in Gen. i. 20—25, 29—11. 3; Lev. viii. 6, 7, 16;
Side, 21.22, 11,

The codex now consists of four volumes, of which the first three
contain the O.T. in 639 leaves. The books are thus distributed:
vol. i. Genesis—z2 Chronicles; vol. 11. Hosea—4 Maccabees; vol.
iii. Psalms—Siracht. The first volume begins with a table of
the Books, in a hand somewhat later than the body of the MS.
The Psalter, which contains the ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος (cli.) and the
liturgical canticles, is preceded by the Epistle of Athanasius to
Marcellinus, the ὑποθέσεις of Eusebius, a table, and the canons
of the Morning and Evening Psalms. The books of vol. ili. are
written στιχηρῶς.

The covers of the volumes bear the arms of Charles I. The
codex had been sent to James I. by Cyril Lucar, patriarch suc-
cessively of Alexandria and Constantinople, but did not reach
England till after the succession of Charles. It had previously
belonged to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, as we learn from an
Arabic note at the beginning. Another but later Arabic note
states that the MS. was the work of ‘the martyr Thecla,’ and
Cyril Lucar has written on a leaf prefixed to vol. 1.: “ Liber iste

..prout ego traditione habebam, est scriptus manu Theclae
nobilis faeminae Aegy ptiae ante MCCC annos circiter, paulo post
concilium Nicaenum.” But, apart from palaeographical con-
siderations”, this date is discredited by the occurrence in the
MS. of excerpts from the works of Athanasius and Eusebius, and
the liturgical matter connected with the Psalter. It has been
proposed to identify Thecla with a correspondent of Gregory of
Nazianzus (see THECLA (10), D.C. B. iv., p. 897); but this later
Thecla seems to have belonged to Cappadocia, not to Egypt.
Portions of the text of cod. A were printed by Patrick Young,
1637 (Job), Ussher, 1655 (Judges vi., xviii.), Walton in the poly-
glott of 1657 (facsimile of Ps. τ, Gale, 1678 (Psalter); and
the MS. was used by Grabe as the basis of his great edition

1 For the order of the books see Part 11. c. 1.
2 As to these see Kenyon, Our Bzble and the Ancient MSS., Ὁ. 129.

[26 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

of the LXx. (1707—1720!). Baber in 1812 published the Psalter
and in 1816—1821 the whole of the O.T. in facsimile type.
Finally, an autotype facsimile, which, as Gregory well says,
leaves nothing to be desired, was issued in 1881—3 by order of
the Trustees of the British Museum under the editorship of Mr
(now Sir) E. Maunde Thompson, who has added brief but valu-
able prolegomena.

The codex is written on leaves of fine vellum, arranged in quires
usually of eight. The writing “varies in different parts of the
MS., though sufficient uniformity is maintained to make it diffi-
cult to decide the exact place where a new hand begins...the
style of writing in vol. iii. is for the most part different from that
of the other volumes*.” In a few of the superscriptions and
colophons the occurrence of Egyptian forms of the Greek letters
has been noted, “proving that the MS., if not absolutely written
in Egypt, must have been immediately afterwards removed
thither®.” The leaves measure about 32 centimetres by 26.3;
each leaf contains two columns of 49—-51 lines, the lines usually
consisting of 23—25 letters. Except in the third volume, the
commencement of a new section or paragraph is marked by a
large initial letter in the margin as well as by paragraph-marks.
There are no breathings or accents by the first hand; an apo-
strophe occasionally separates words or consonants; here and
there an asterisk is placed in the margin (e.g. Gen. xli. 19).
Punctuation is limited to a single point, generally high. The

eesti

OYNOC, AdA, IHA, IAHM, TINA, and k, Δ, ὃ, N,, T, (καί, μου, σου,
-vat,-Ta). There are numerous and lengthy erasures, over which
a corrector has written the text which he preferred. The earliest
corrector (A!) was contemporary with the scribe or nearly so; the
second corrector (A#) may have lived a century later; a third and
still later hand (A>) has also been at work. But the question of
the ‘hands’ in this MS. remains to be worked out, and calls for
the knowledge of an expert in palaeography.

B (II). Coprx Vaticanus (Vatican Library, Gr. 1209).

A MS. of the Old and New Testaments, defective at the
beginning and in some other places. The O. T. has lost its first
31 leaves, the original hand beginning at Gen. xlvi. 28 (with the
words πόλιν eis γῆν Ῥαμεσσή). Through the tearing of fol. 178
2 Regn. il. 5—7, 10—13, has also disappeared, and the loss of

1 See c. vi.
2 Prolegg. i. p. 358.
% E. Maunde Thompson, Cod. Alex. i. p. 8 ff. bid.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 127

10 leaves after fol. 348 involves a /acuna which extends from Ps.
cv. (cvi.) 27 to Ps. cxxxvii. (cxxxvili.) 6», The longer gaps have
been filled by a recent hand.

The present codex is a quarto volume containing 759 leaves,
of which 617 belong to the O. T. Every book of the Greek O. T.
is included, except 1—4 Maccabees, which never found a place
in the MS. The order of the books differs from that which is
followed in cod. A, the poetical books being placed between the
canonical histories and the Prophets; and there are variations
also in the internal arrangement of the groups.

Of the history of this MS. before the sixteenth century nothing
is certainly known. A Vatican collection of Greek MSS. was
already in existence in the middle of the fifteenth century, and
the greatest treasure in the present library was among its earliest
acquisitions. It finds a place in the early catalogues of the
Vatican'; reference is made to this MS. in letters addressed by
the librarian of the Vatican to Erasmus in 1521 and 15332, and
it formed the chief authority for the Roman edition of the Lxx.
in 1587. By this time its importance was already recognised, and
it is amazing that an interval of nearly 300 years should have
been allowed to pass before the actual text of the MS. was given
to the world. A collation of B with the Aldine text was made by
Bartolocci in 1669, and is still preserved at Paris in the Biblio-
theque Nationale (ZS. gr. supplem. 53). With other treasures
of the Vatican the codex was carried to Paris by Napoleon, and
there it was inspected in 1809 by Hug, whose book De antigut-
tate codicis Vaticanz (Freiburg, 1810) aroused fresh interest in its
text. On the restoration of the MS. to the Vatican it was
guarded with a natural but unfortunate jealousy which for more
than half a century baffled the efforts of Biblical scholars, Nei-
ther Tischendorf in 1843 and 1866 nor Tregelles in 1845 was
permitted to make a full examination of the codex. Meanwhile
the Roman authorities were not unmindful of the duty of pub-
lishing these treasures, but the process was slow, and the first
results were disappointing. An edition printed by Mai in 1828
—38 did not see the light till 1857. It was followed in 1881 by
Cozza’s more accurate but far from satisfactory volumes in fac-
simile type. At length in 1890 under the auspices of Leo XIII.
the Vatican Press issued a photographic reproduction worthy
of this most important of Biblical MSS.3

1 This has been proved by Nestle (Academy, May 30, 1891) against
Batiffol (Za Vaticane de Paul 7221. ἃ Paul V., Paris, 18go, p. 82. Cf.
Nestle, Septuagintastudien, 11. p. 11, note i.

* La Vaticane de Paul 7772. ἃ Paul V. (Paris, 1890). Gregory, Prolegg.
p. 361.

3 On this work see Nestle, Sep‘uagintast. iii. p. 13 ff.

128 Manuscripts of the Septuagint. |

The codex is written on the finest vellum in a singularly
beautiful hand! which “may be attributed to the fourth century,”
and probably to the middle of the century*, and bears a resem-
blance to the hand which is found in papyri of the best Roman ~
period’. The leaves are arranged in quinions (gatherings of ten
pages); each page exhibits three columns of 42 lines with 16—18
letters in each line. There are no breathings or accents in the
first hand; a point occurs but rarely; initial letters do not pro-
ject into the margin. The text is written in two contemporary
hands, the transition being made at p. 335. The MS. has been
corrected more than once; besides the scribe or contemporary
diorthotes (B!), we may mention an early corrector denoted as
B4, and a late zzstaurator, who has gone over the whole text,
spoiling its original beauty, and preserving oftentimes the correc-
tions of B? rather than the original text.

C. CopExX EPHRAEMI SYRI RESCRIPTUS PARISIENSIS.
Bibliothéque Nationale, Gr. 9 (formerly Reg. 1905, Colbert.

3769).

A folio consisting at present of 209 leaves, of which 64 con-
tain portions of the O. T. The fragments are as follows : Prov. @
ie vonra—il. 8, XV. 29 κρείσσων ---ΧΥΊ!. I, XVlil. II 7 O€ b0fa—xix. |
23, Xxil. 17 Thy δὲ σήν---ΧΧΊ]]. 25, ΧΧΙν. 22 ΩΣ Ὁ ἄβρωτα---"6 ἡ γῆ,
XXVi. 23 χείλη Aeta—xXXVlii. 2, xxix. 48—end of book; Eccl. i.
ματαιύτης-- 14. ll. 18 ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον---ΕηἋ of book; Cant. 1. 3—iii. ἢ
Σαλωμών ; Job ii. 12 ῥήξαντες .---ἶν. 12 ἐν λόγοις gov, V. 27 σὺ δὲ
γνῶθι---νἹῖ. Task . 9—Xil. 2 ἄνθρωποι, xiii. 18 οἶδα eyo—xViil. 9
παγίδες, xix. 27) a6 op@ahpos—xxil. 14 νεφέλη, XXIV. a γυμνοὺς
πολλούς- ΧΧΧ. I ἐν μέρει, ΧΧΧΙ. 6---χχχν. 15 ὀργὴν αὐτοῦ, ΧΧΧΥΊΪ. 5
—XxXvili. 17 θανάτου, xl. 20 περιθήσεις---Εηἀ of book; Sap. vill. 5
epyatopevos—Xil. IO τύπον μετανοίας, xiv. I9—xvil. 18 εὐμελής,
XVlll. 24 ἐπὶ yap—end of book; Sir. prol. I—vii. 14 πρεσβυτέρων,
Vill. 15 αὐτὸς γάρ---ΧΊ. 17 εὐσεβέσιν, ΧΙΙ. 16 καὶ ἐάν---χν]. I ἀχρή-
orev, XVil. I2—xx. 5 σοφός, ΧΧΙ. 12---ΧΧΙΪ. 19, XXVil. IQ—xxviil. 25
σταθμόν, XxX. 8—XXXXIV. 22 οὐ μή σοι, XXX. 25—xxXxXi. 6, ΧΧΧΊΪ. 22 καὶ
ὁ KUplos—XXXiIll. 13 Ἰακώβ, XXXVIl, II—XxXxvVilli. 15, SEXES, {|Ξ--- —xliv. 27
ἀφικώμεθα, xlv. 24 ἵνα ait@—xlvil. 23 “PoBodp, xlvili. 11I—xlix. 12
Ἰησοῦς vids. The distribution of the leaves is Proverbs 6, Eccle-
siastes 8, Cant. 1, Job 19, Wisdom 7, Sirach 23.

;
.
;
P

1 Specimens are given in Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s Greek and Latin
Paleography, p. 150; and F. G. Kenyon’s Our Bible &c., p. 136; E.
Nestle, Linfiithrung*, Tafel 4.

2 Sir E. M. Thompson, af. czt. p. 159; WH., Intr. p. 75.

3 F. G. Kenyon, Paleography of Greek papyrt, Ρ' Ὡς See A. Rahlf,
Alter τ. Heimath der Vat. Bibelhandschrift, in N. G. W., 1899, i. p. 72 ff.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 129

The copy of the Greek Bible of which these fragments have
survived unfortunately fell during the middle ages into the hands
of a scribe in want of writing materials. Originally, as it seems,
a complete Bible, written probably in the fifth century and, as
Tischendorf believed, in Egypt, in the twelfth century it was
taken to pieces, sponged, and used for other writings!. What
became of the missing leaves we do not know; those of the
Paris volume are covered with the Greek text of certain
works of Ephrem the Syrian*. The book was probably brought
to Florence early in the 16th century by Andreas Lascaris, the
agent of Lorenzo de’ Medici, and passing into the possession
of Catharine de’ Medici, accompanied her to France, where
it found its way into the Royal Library. Here the value of the
underlying text was recognised by Montfaucon, who called atten-
tion to it in his Palaeographia Graeca, and gave a specimen
from the fragments of the N. T. (p. 213 f.). ~The O.T. frag-
ments were partly examined by Wetstein and Thilo’, but were
not given to the world until in 1845 Tischendorf, who had pub-
lished the N.T. portion in 1843, completed his task by printing
ἘΠΕ ΓΚ x. text.

This once noble MS. was written in single columns from 4o
to 46 lines in length, each line containing about 40 letters*. The
writing of the O. T. differs, according to Tischendorf, from that
of the N. T.; it is more delicate, some of the letters (A, A, B, K,
=, X, ®) assume different forms in the two portions of the codex,
and there are other palaeographical indications that the hand
which wrote the earlier books did not write the later. Neverthe-
less Tischendorf regarded the two hands as contemporary, and
believed the codex to have been originally one. A seventh cen-
tury corrector has left traces of his work, but his corrections are
not numerous except in Sirach. As to the order of the books
nothing can be ascertained, the scribe who converted the MS.
into a palimpsest having used the leaves for his new text without
regard to their original arrangement?.

S=. Copex Sinaiticus. Leipzig and St Petersburg.

The remains of this great uncial Bible contain the following
portions of the O. T.: Gen. xxiii. 19 αὕτη---χχὶν. 4 πορεύσῃ, xxiv.

1 On palimpsest MSS. see Sir E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin
Paleography, p. 75 ff.

2 For a list of these see Omont, /zventaire sommaire des manuscrits
Eaecs,. Ὁ. 2.

9. Tischendorf, Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus, prolegg. p. 9.

4 See a photographic facsimile in Fucsimilés des plus anciens manuscrits
grecs de la Bibl. Nat. (A. Omont, Paris, 1892).

> See Tischendorf, of. cit., prolegg. p. 5.

S315. 9

[30 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

5 εἰς τὴν γῆν---ὃ, 9 ῥήματος---Ἰ4 καμήλους, 17 καὶ eimev—IQ ἕως ἄν,
25 αὐτῷ---27 τήν, 30 ἄνθρωπον---33 λαλῆσαι, 36 αὐτῷ (15)---41 ἐκ
τῆς, 41 ὁρκισμοῦ---46 ἀφ᾽; Num. ν. 26 αὐτῆς---30 ποιήσει, vi. 5
ἅγιος---ὁ τετελευτηκυίᾳ, 11 κεφαλήν ---Τ2 αἱ (2°), 17 kav@—18 μαρτυ-
ρίου, 22, 23, 27 Κύριος, vil. 4 M@vonv—5 Λευείταις, 12 Ναασσών---
[3 ἕν, 15 ἕνα (2°)—20 θυμιάματος, I Par. ix. 27 τὸ mpwi—xix. 17,
2 Esdr. ix. 9 Kuptos—end of book; Esther; Tobit; Judith; Joel,
Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecha-
riah, Malachi; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lam. i. I—ii. 20; 1 and 4 Mac-
cabees.

The forty-three leaves containing 1 Par. xi, 22—xix. 17,
2 Esdras ix. 9—end, Esther, Tobit i. I—ii. 2, Jer. x. 25—end,
and Lam. i. I—ii. 20 were found by Tischendorf in a waste-
paper basket at the Convent of St Catharine’s, Mount Sinai, in
1844, and published by him in a lithographed facsimile under
the name of Codex Friderico-Augustanus! (Leipzig, 1846); to
these in Jon. sacr. tned., nov. coll. i. (1855) he was able to add
Isa. lxvi. 12—Jer. i. 7 from a copy made during the same visit to
Sinai. A second visit in 1853 enabled him to print in the next
volume of the Zonumenta (1857) two short fragments of Genesis
(xxiv. 9, 10, 41—43). During a third visit to the Convent in 1859,
he was permitted to see the rest of the codex, including 156 leaves
of the Old Testament, and ultimately succeeded in carrying the
whole to St Petersburg for presentation to the Czar Alexander II.
This final success led to the publication in 1862 of the Bzbliorum
Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, containing a facsimile of the
St Petersburg portion of the Sinaitic MS. Lastly in 1867 Tisch-
endorf completed his task by printing in his Appendix Codicum
certain fragments of Genesis and Numbers which had been dis-
covered by the Archimandrite Porfirius in the bindings of other
Sinai MSS.?

This great Bible was written on leaves which originally
measured 15 x 134 inches, and were gathered, with two excep-
tions, into quires of four. Each column contains 48 lines, with
12—14 letters in a line; and in all but the poetical books each
page exhibits four columns, so that eight lie open at a time®; in
the poetical books, where the lines are longer, two columns
appear on each page, or four at an opening. The characters are
assigned to the fourth century; they are well-formed and some-
what square, written without break, except when an apostrophe
or a single point intervenes; a breathing Zrzma manu has been

1 So called in honour of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony.

2 Cf. Tischendorf’s remarks in Zztt. C.-Blatt, 1867 (27).

3 ‘* They have much of the appearance of the successive columns in —
a papyrus roll, and it is not at all impossible that it [the MS.] was actually
copied from such a roll.” Kenyon, p. 1243 cf. Scrivener-Miller, p. 95.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. ΤΌ

noticed at Tobit vi. 9, but with this exception neither breathings
nor accents occur. Tischendorf distinguished four hands in the
codex (A, B, C, D), and assigned to A the fragments of Chro-
nicles, 1 Macc., and the last 44 leaves of 4 Macc., as well as the
whole of the N. T.; the fragments of Numbers and the Prophets
are ascribed to B; the poetical books to C; Tobit and Judith and
the rest of 4 Macc. to D, whois identified with the scribe to whom
we owe the N. T. of Codex Vaticanus. He also detected traces
of five stages in the correction of the MS., which he represented
by the symbols 2, Sea, Ne-b, Nee Nd. The first symbol covers the
work of the diorthotes and other nearly contemporary correctors ;
Nea, cb, ee are three seventh century hands, of which the last
appears chiefly in the Book of Job, whilst the later 8¢ has occu-
pied itself with retracing faded writing in the Prophets.

After 1 Chron. xix. 17 cod. & (FA) passes without break to
2 Esdr. ix. 9, but the place is marked by the corrector N** with
three crosses and the note μέχρι τούτου [τοῦ] σημείου τῶν τριῶν
σταυρῶν ἐστιν τὸ τέλος τῶν ἑπτὰ φύλλων τῶν περισσῶν καὶ μὴ
ὄντων τοῦ Ἔσδρα. Five of these leaves remain, and the two
which preceded them probably contained 1 Chron. vi. 50—ix. 275
(H. St J. Thackeray in Hastings’ D.B., i. p. 762). Westcott (Bzdle
zn the Church, p. 307) supposes that the insertion of this fragment
of 1 Chron. in the heart of 2 Esdras is due to a mistake in the
binding of the copy from which the MS. was transcribed; comp.
the similar error in the archetype of all our Greek copies of
Sirach!, Whether 1 Esdras formed a part of cod. δὲ is uncertain,
the heading Ἔσδρας β΄ does not prove this, since cod. δὲ con-
tains 4 Maccabees under the heading Μακκαβαίων 6’ although it
aie did not give the second and third books (Thackeray,
BZ).

No uniform edition or photographic reproduction of this
most important MS. has yet appeared®. The student is still
under the necessity of extracting the text of δὲ from the five
works of Tischendorf mentioned above. A homogeneous edition
of the remains of the codex or a photographic reproduction of
the text is one of our most urgent needs in the field of Biblical
palaeography.

N (XI). Coprex BasiLiaANo-VaTicanus. Vatican Library,
Gr. 2106, formerly Basil. 1453.

1 Another explanation (suggested by Dr Gwynn) is given by Dr
Lupton in Wace’s Apocrypha, 1., p. 2.

2 A facsimile of 2 Esdr. xviii. 15—xix. 15 may be seen in Stade, Gesch.
a. Volkes Israel, ii. p. 192.

3 Cf. Wetstein, V. 7. i. p. 133; Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, p. 48.

0-2

132 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

V (23). CoDEX VENETUS. St Mark’s Library, Venice,
cod, Gr. 1°.

Dr E. Klostermann (Axzalecta, pp. 9 f., 33 f.) has produced
good reasons for believing that these two codices originally
formed portions of a complete copy of the Greek Old Testament.

The Vatican portion now contains Lev. xiii. 59—Num. xxi.
34, Num. xxii. 19—Deut. xxviii. 40, Deut. xxx. 16—Jud. xiv. τό,
Jud. xviii. 2—1 Regn. xvii. 12, 1 Regn. xvii. 31—3 Regn. viii. 8,
3 Regn. xi. 17—end of 2 Paralip., 2 Esdr. v. to—xvii. 3, Esther.
The Venice MS. yields Job xxx. 8 to end, Prov., Eccl., Cant.,
Sap., Sirach, the Minor Prophets (in the order Hos., Am., Joel,
Ob., Jon., Mic., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., Zech., Mal.), Isa., Jer.,
Bar., Lam., Ezek., Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 1—4 Macc.

The Venice folio measures 164x113 inches, the Vatican at
present a little less, but the breadth and length of the columns is
identical in the two codices; in both there are two columns of
60 lines. The Venice MS. contains 164 leaves, the Vatican 132.
The first leaf of the Venice book begins the 27th quire of the
original MS., and on computation it appears that, if to the Vatican
leaves were added those which would be required to fill the
lacunae of the earlier books and of Job, the entire number
would make up 26 quires of the same size*. As regards the
history of the separated portions, it appears that the Vatican
MS. was originally brought to Rome from Calabria by a Basilian
monk?; the Venice book was once the property of Cardinal Bes-
sarion, by whom it was presented to St Mark’s#.

The handwriting of N and V is in the sloping uncials of cent.
vilii—ix. Some use was made of V in the Roman edition of
1587, where it seems to have supplied the text of Maccabees;
both codices were collated for Holmes and Parsons.

(B) Octateuch and Historical Books.

D (I). Coprex Cotronianus. British Museum, Cotton
MSS., Otho B. vi. 5—6.

A collection of fragments, the largest of which measures no
more than 7x54 inches, containing portions of the Book of
Genesis with vestiges,of pictures executed in a semi-classical
style.

1 Cf. Deutsche Lit.-Zeit. 1897, p. 1475 f.
* Klostermann, p. 9.
3 Holmes, Praef. ad Pentateuch. i
4 It was the eighth of Bessarion’s MSS.; see Schott in Eichhorn’s

Repert., viii. 181.

i es

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. ΠῚ

No other uncial codex of the Lxx., of which any portion
remains, has suffered so lamentable a fate. Brought to England
from Philippi! in the reign of Henry VIII. by two Orthodox
Bishops?, and presented to the English monarch, it remained in
the Royal Library till the reign of Elizabeth, who gave it to her
Greek tutor Sir John Fortescue, and from his hands after several
vicissitudes it found its way into the Cotton collection. In 1731,
while the codex was at Ashburnham House with the rest of that
collection, it was reduced by fire to a heap of charred and
shrivelled leaves. Even before the fire it had been imperfect;
the beginning and end of the book had disappeared, and
other leaves were defective here and there; yet 165 or 166
leaves remained and 250 miniatures. The existing remains at
the British Museum, though collected with the most scrupulous
care, consist only of 150 mutilated fragments; to these must be
added a smaller series preserved at the Baptist College, Bristol,
to which institution they were bequeathed by Dr A. Gifford,
formerly an Assistant Librarian at the Museum.

Most of the London fragments were deciphered and published
by Tischendorf in 1857 (A/on. sacr. ined., nov. coll. ii.); the rest,
together with the Bristol fragments, are now accessible in Dr
F.W. Gotch’s Supplement to Tischendorf’s Religuiae cod. Cotton.
(London, 1881).

Happily we have means of ascertaining with some approach
to completeness the text of this codex as it existed before the
fire. Although no transcript had been made, the MS. was more
than once collated—by Patrick Young and Ussher for Walton’s
Polyglott, and afterwards by Gale, Crusius, and Grabe; and
Grabe’s collation, which is preserved in the Bodleian, was
published by Dr H. Owen (Collatio cod. Cotton. Geneseos cum
Editione Romana..., Londini, 1778). Some assistance can also
be obtained from the Vetusta Monumenta published by the
London Society of Antiquaries (vol. i. 1747), where two plates
are given depicting some of the miniatures, together with por-
tions of the text of fragments which have since disappeared.

Lastly, among the Peiresc papers in the Bibliothéque Na-
tionale, transcripts have been found of Gen. i. 13, 14, xviil. 24—
26, xlili. 16, which were made from the MS. in 1606. They are
printed in M/émotres de la Société Nationale des Antiquatires de
France, 1111. pp. 163—172%. As this discovery was overlooked

1 Still an episcopal see in the time of Le Quien; see Lightfoot, Phz/ip-
pians, p. 64, note.

2 They stated that it had once been the property of Origen.

δ Walton’s statement that Cod. D at one time contained the Pentateuch
is however groundless ; in the Cotton catalogue of 1621 it is described as
‘Genesis only.”

4 I owe the reference to Dr Nestle (Urtext, p. 71).

134 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

when the second edition of Zhe Old Testament in Greek, vol. 1.,
passed through the press in 1895, it may be convenient to the
student to have the new fragments placed before him 272 extenso.

Gen. i. 13, 14...73€ ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωΐ, ἡμέρα τρίτη. 14 καὶ
εἶπεν ὁ θεός Τενηθήτωσαν φωστῆρες ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
εἰς φαῦσιν τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς τοῦ δια-
χω[ρίζειν]...

II. ΧΥΠ]Ι. 24—26. *éay ὦσιν πεντήκοντα δίκαιοι ἐν τῇ πόλει,
ἀπολέσεις αὐτούς; οὐκ ἀνήσεις πάντα τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον ἕνεκα τῶν
πεντήκοντα δικαίων, ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐν αὐτῇ ; “5 μηδαμῶς σὺ ποιήσεις ὡς τὸ
ῥῆμα τοῦτο, τοῦ ἀποκτεῖναι δίκαιον μετὰ ἀσεβοῦς, καὶ ἔσται ὁ δίκαιος
ὡς ὁ ἀσεβής" μηδαμῶς. ὁ κρίνων πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, οὐ ποιήσεις κρίσιν;
56 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος "Ἐὰν εὕρω ἐν Σοδόμοις]...

16. xliii. 16... θύματα καὶ ἑτοίμασον: μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ γὰ[ρ] φάγονται οἱ
ἄνθρωποι οὗτοι ἄρτουΪς] τὴν μεσημβρίαν...

The vellum of the MS. is fine, but not so thin as in some
other early uncials. The leaves were arranged in quires of four.
Each page, where the writing was not broken by an illustration,
contained from 26 to 28 lines of 27 to 30 letters. The uncials
are well formed, but vary to some extent in thickness and size.
Initial Jetters are used, and the point is sometimes high, some-
times middle or low. On the whole the codex may probably be
assigned to cent. v.—vi. The hands of three scribes have been
traced in the fragments, and there appear to have been two cor-
rectors after the dorthotes; the earlier of the two, who seems to
have lived in the eighth century, has retraced the faded letters.

E. Copex BoDLeIANus. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Auct.
T. infr. i. 1.

The Bodleian volume contains the following fragments of
Genesis: i. I—xiv. 6, xvili. 24 ducai@v—xx. 14 καὶ ἀπέδωκεν, XXiv.
54 ἐκπέμψατε----χ] 1]. πρόκεδης αὐϊτοῖς]. Another leaf, now at the
Cambridge University Library, contains xlii. 18 [ai Jrois τῇ ἡμέρᾳ
—xliv. 13 τὸν ἕνα καί, but the verso, to which xlil. 31—xliv. 13
belongs, is written in (?) contemporary minuscules. It is now
known that this text is carried on by more than one cursive
MS. The St Petersburg cod. Ixii. begins where the Cambridge
fragment leaves off (at Gen. xliv. 13 Βενιαμίν: ἐγὼ μὲν yap), and
proceeds, with some lacunae, as far as 3 Regn. xvi. 28 (ra λοιπὰ
τῶν συμπλοκῶν). The largest of the lacunae (Jos. xxiv. 27—
Ruth, inclusive) is supplied by the British Museum MS. Add.
20002, which once belonged to the same codex as E, the Cam-
bridge fragment, and St Petersburg cod. Ixii.

77αγι5εγ1ῤίς of the Septuagint. 135

The recent history of this MS. is both curious and instruc-
tive. The portions now at Oxford and London were brought
from the East by Tischendorf in 1853; the Cambridge leaf and
the St Petersburg portion followed in 1859. Tischendorf pub-
lished the contents of the Bodleian volume in Monumenta sacra
inedita, n. c. ii. (1857); the Cambridge leaf remained in his
possession till his death in 1874, when it was purchased by the
Syndics of the University Library. In 1891 it was recognised
by the present writer and Mr H. A. Redpath as a continuation
of the Bodleian Genesis!; and its contents were at once com-
municated to the Academy (June 6, 1891), and were afterwards
incorporated in the apparatus of the Cambridge manual LXxX.
(vol. i., ed. 2, 1895). Finally, in 1898, Dr A. Rahlfs of Géottin-
gen? proved that the Petersburg and London volumes originally
formed a part of the codex to which the Oxford Genesis and the
Cambridge leaf belonged. The entire MS. will be used for
the apparatus of the larger Cambridge Lxx.; a description by
the Editors (Messrs Brooke and M*Lean) may be found in the
Classical Review for May, 1899 (vol. xili., pp. 209—11).

The Bodleian Genesis is written in large sloping uncials of a
late form on 29 leaves of stout vellum ; each page carries two
columns of 37—44 lines; in the earlier pages the letters are
closely packed and there are sometimes as many as 28 in a line,
but as the book advances the number seldom exceeds and some-
times fall below 20. Tischendorf was disposed to assign the
writing to the 9th, or at the earliest the δίῃ century; but the
debased character of the uncials, as well as the readiness of the
scribe to pass from the uncial to the cursive script, point to a still
later date*. According to the same authority the uncial leaves of
the codex have passed through the hands of a nearly contempo-
rary corrector, and also of another whose writing is more recent.

F (VII). Copex Amprosianus. Ambrosian Library,
Milan. A. 147 infr.

The remains of this important Codex consist of the following

1 Mr Bradshaw, I now learn, had previously noticed this, but he does
not appear to have published the fact, or to have left any written statement
about it.

2 In his paper wher eine von Tischendorf aus dem Orient mit-gebrachte,
in Oxford, Cambridge, London, u. Petersburg liegende Handschrift der
Septuaginta, reprinted from Wachrichten der Α΄. Gesellschaft der Wassen-
schaften zu Gottingen, 1898; cf. Th. L.-Z., Feb. 4, 1899, p. 74. See also
E. Klostermann, G. G. 4., 1895, p. 257-

3 ‘The date of the whole MS., including the uncial part, may very
well be the tenth century”’ (Class. Review, l.c.).

136 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

fragments of the Octateuch: Gen. xxxi. 15 [ἀλλοτρί]αι---37 npav-
vnoas, Xlii. 14 ὅτι κατάσκοποι---21 εἰσηκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ, 28 ἐταρά-
xonoav—xlvi. 6 τὴν κτῆσιν, ΧΙνΊ]. 16 εἰ ἐκλέλοιπεν --χ]ν}]], 3 6 θεός
μοι ὥφθη, xiviii. 21 τῶν mwarépwv—li. 14 οἱ ἀδελφοί. Exod. i. Io
yis—viii. 19 τῷ [Φαραώ], xii. 31 οἱ vioi—xxx. 29 6 ἅπτ. αὐτῶν, ΧΧΧΙ.
18 ἐν τῷ ὄρει---ΧΧΧΊΙ!. 6 θυσ[ίαν], xxxil. 13 [πολυπλη Ἰθυνῶ---χχχνὶ. 3
προσ[εδέχοντο], ΧΧΧν]]. 10 αἱ βάσεις---οπα of book. Lev. 1. I—ix.
18 κύκλῳ, x. 14 [ἀφαιρέμα]τος--δεηᾶὰ of book. Num. (without
lacuna). Deut. i. I—xxviii. 63 ηὐφράν[ θη], xxix. 14 καὶ τὴν ἀράν
—end of book. Jos. i. 1—ii. 9 ἐφ᾽ [n]uas, 11. 15 αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ τί εἼίχει
—iv. 5 ἔμπροσθεν, iv. 10 [συ]νετέλεσεν .---ν. I Ἰορδάνην, ν. 7 Ἰησοῦς
—vi. 23 ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῆς, vii. 1 Ζαμβρί---ἶἰχ. 27 τῆς σήμερον ἡμ[έρας],
X. 37 ἦν ἐν av’Tn—xii. 12 Bao. ᾽᾿Ἐγλών 1.

An inscription on a.blank page states that the fragments were
“ex Macedonia Corcyram advecta, ibique Ill. Card. Fed. Borro-
maei Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Fundatoris iussu empta eidem-
que Bibliothecae transmissa sunt.” They attracted the notice of
Montfaucon (Diar. Jtal., p. τι, Pal. sacr. pp. 27, 186), and were
collated for Holmes, but in an unsatisfactory manner. Ceriani’s
transcript (Mon. sacr. et prof. iii., Mediol. 1864) supplies the text,
for the accuracy of which the name of the Editor is a sufficient
guarantee, and a learned preface, but the full prolegomena
which were reserved for another volume have not appeared. A
photograph is needed not only for palaeographical purposes, but
to shew the marginal readings, many of which are Hexaplaric.

The MS. is written on the finest and whitest vellum, the
leaves of which are gathered in fours”; three columns of writing
stand on each page, and 35 lines in each column. The cha-
racters are those of cent. iv.—v.; initial letters are used, which
project to half their breadth into the margin. Punctuation is fre-
quent, and there is much variety in the use of the points; accents
and breathings are freely added prima manu, a feature in which
this MS. stands alone amongst early Uncials*. The colour of the
ink changes after Deuteronomy, and the rest of the fragments
seem to have been written by another scribe; but the work is
contemporary, for the quire numbers have been added by the
first scribe throughout. The MS. has passed through the hands
of two early correctors, and the margins are crowded with
various readings, notes, and scholia.

1 The fragments of Malachi and Isaiah, attributed to F in Holmes,
followed by Tischendorf V. 7.?, and Kenyon (p. 62), belong to a MS. of
cent. xi.; see Ceriani, Mon. sacr. et prof., praef. p. ix.

2 See Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Pal., p. 62.

3 Cf. Thompson, of. cit. p. 72, “‘they were not systematically applied
to Greek texts before the 7th century.”

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 137

G (IV, V). ΟΟΡΕΧ CoLBERTO-SARRAVIANUS. (1) Leyden,
University Library, Voss. Gr. Q. 8. (2) Paris, Bibliotheque
Nationale, cod. Gr. 17, formerly Colbert. 3084. (3) St Peters-
burg, Imperial Library, v. 5.

Of this codex Leyden possesses 130 leaves and Paris 22,
while one leaf has strayed to St Petersburg. When brought
together the surviving leaves yield the following portions of
the Octateuch: Gen. xxxi. 53 a’r@v—xxxvl. 18 XOvyarpos ᾿Ανά.
1*Exod. xxxvi. 8—29, *xxxvil. 3 ὑφαντοῦ---6, *xxxviil. I—18,
*xxxix. I [κατ]ειργάσθη---τι, *16 σκεύη---Το, xl. 2 ἐκεῖ τὴν κιβωτόν
to end of book, *Lev. i. I—iv. 26 ἐξίε γιλάσεται περί, ἵν. 27 λαοῦ
τῆς yns—xill. 17 καὶ ἰδού, *xiil. 49 ἱματίῳ---χῖν. 6 λήμψεται αὐτὸ
καί, Ἔχην. 33—49 9 apayvilcat], Ἔχ 24 κοιμηθῇ---χν!!. Io gl ΌΟΣ,
[ηλύτων], *xvill, 28 [¢]@vecw—xix. 36 στάθμια δίκαια καί, χχῖν. 9 καὶ
τοῖς viois—xxvlil. 16 ἄνθρωπος τῷς Num. i. I—Vil. 85 τῶν σκευῶν,
ΧΙ 18, τίς Wopeet—xviil, 2 φυλήν, xVill. 30 épeis—xx. 22
παρεγένοντο οἱ, *xxv. 2 αὐτῶν καί---χχν!. 3, ἜΧΧΙΧ. 12 ἑορτάσετε---
33 σύγκρισιν, 34 καὶ χίε )ipap(p)o yv—end of book. Deut. iv.
11 X[kap]dias: TOU οὐρανοῦ---26 ἐκεῖ κλη[ρονομῆσαι], vill. 13 τὸν
oirov—xvii. 14 κατακληρονομήσῃς], ΧνΊΠ. 8—xix. 4 τὸν πλη σίον],
ΧΧΥΤΠ, 12 [ἔθνε]σιν---χχχὶ. II. Jos. bre 33 [ἐκλέξη Ἰται--χιχ. 25
αὕτη ἡ κληρονομία. +Jud. ix. 48 αὐτὸς καὶ was—x. 6 ᾿Ασσαρὼώθὰς
καὶ σὺν TOUS Ἐν: 3 [Sap] yov—xviii. 16 of ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν, X1X. 25 αὐτῇ
ὅλην .---χχὶ. 12 τετρακοσίοις.

The Leyden leaves of this MS. are known to have been in
the possession of Claude Sarrave, of Paris, who died in 1651.
After his death they passed into the hands successively of
Jacques Mentel, a Paris physician, who has left his name on
the first page, and of Isaac Voss (+ 1681), from whose heirs they
were purchased by the University of Leyden. The Paris leaves
had been separated from the rest of the MS. before the end of
the 16th century, for they were once in the library of Henri
Memme, who died in 1596. With a large part of that collection
they were presented to J. B. Colbert in 1732, and thus found
their way into the Royal Library at Paris. Among earlier
owners of the St Petersburg leaf were F. Pithaeus, Desmarez,
Montfaucon?, and Dubrowsky. The text of the Leyden leaves
and the St Petersburg leaf was printed in facsimile type by
Tischendorf in the third volume of his Wonxumenta sacra (Leip-
zig, 1860); a splendid photographic reproduction of all the
known leaves of the codex appeared at Leyden in 1897%.

1 5 Eregments marked * are at Paris; that marked + is at St Petersburg.
co, Pal, sacr. p. 186 f.; Tischendorf, Mon. sacr. ined. 225 c.

111. Arolegg. p. xviii.
ἜΣ er. cod. Sarraviant-Colbertini quae supersunt in bibliothects
Leidensi Parisiensi Petropolitana phototypice edita. Praefatus est H, Omont.

138 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

The leaves measure οὗ x 82 inches; the writing is in two
columns of 27 lines, each line being made up of 13—15 letters.
In Tischendorf’s judgement the hand belongs to the end of the
fourth or the first years of the fifth century. There are no initial
letters ; the writing is continuous excepting where it is broken
by a point or sign; points, single or double, occur but rarely; a
breathing is occasionally added by the first hand, more fre-
quently by an early corrector. Of the seven correctors noticed
by Tischendorf three only need be mentioned here,—(A) a con-
temporary hand, (B) another fifth century hand which has
revised Deuteronomy and Judges, and (C) a hand of the sixth
century which has been busy in the text of Numbers.

In one respect this codex holds an unique position among
uncial MSS. of the Octateuch. It exhibits an Origenic text
which retains many of the Hexaplaric signs. Besides the aste-
risk (Ὁ ) and various forms of the obelus (+, +, +, +, and in the
margin, —), the metobelus frequently occurs (:, -/, /-, -/:). The
importance of Cod. Sarravianus as a guide in the recovery of
the Hexaplaric text has been recognised from the time of Mont-
faucon (comp. Field, Herapla, i., p. 5); and it is a matter for no
little congratulation that we now possess a complete and admir-
able photograph of the remains of this great MS.

Ἢ. Copex Perropo.itanus. In the Imperial Library
at St Petersburg.

This palimpsest consists at present of 88 leaves in octavo; in
its original form there were 44, arranged in quaternions. Under
the patristic matter which is now in possession of the vellum,
Tischendorf detected a large part of the Septuagint text of
Numbers. The fragments recovered contain chh. i. I—30, 40
—ii. 14, il. 30—ill. 26, v. 13—23, vi. 6—vii. 7, vii. 41—78, vill. 2—
16, ΧΙ. 3-—xlll. II, xill. 28—xiv. 34, xv. 320, 22—28, 32—xvi. 31,
XV1. 44—xvlil. 4, xvill. 1526, xxi. 15 —22, xxil. 3O—41, xxili. 12—
27, XXV1. 54—xXxvVii. 15, xxviii. 7—xxix. 36, xxx. 9—xxxl. 48, xxxii.
7—xXxXxiv. 17, xxxvi. I—end of book. They are printed in Monu-
menta sacr. tned., nov. coll. i. (Leipzig, 1855).

In Tischendorf’s judgement the upper writing is not later
than the ninth century; the lower writing he ascribes to the
sixth ; for though the characters are generally such as are found
in fifth century MSS., yet there are several indications of a later
date, e.g. the numerous compendia scribendi and superscribed
letters, and the occasional use of oblong forms. Chapters and
arguments are noted in the margin—the chapters of Numbers
are 207—and at the end of the book the number of stich7 is

i Te

Μὸν το στοος
- +, -“ Ψ

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 139

specified Cypre ΕΞ 3515): the scribe appends his παιηθ--[ὡᾶν-
NOY MONAXOY CEprioy.

K. FRAGMENTA LipsiENsIA. Leipzig, University Library
(cod slisch. i1.).

Twenty-two leaves discovered by Tischendorf in 1844, of
which seventeen contain under Arabic writing of the ninth cen-
tury fragments of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges
(Num. v. 17—18, 2425; vil. 183—19, 30—31, 35—36, 37—40, 42
—43, sa anal XV. II—I7, 19-——243; XXVil. I—xxvill. 5, xxvili. 10--
XXIX. 2, XXXV. 19—22, 28-31. Deut. ii. 8—Io, 15—19, ix. I—I0,
xviii. 21—xix. I, xlx. 6—9; xxi. 8—I2, 17—19. Jos. x. 39—xi.
16, xii. 2—15, xxil. 7—9, 10—23; Jud. xi. 24— 34, Xvili. 2—20").

The Greek writing is not later than cent. vil. The fragments
are printed in the first volume of Monumenta sacra inedita, tC:

L (VI). CopEx PuRPUREUS VINDOBONENSIS. Vienna,
Imperial Library.

This MS. consists of 24 leaves of Genesis, with which are

bound up two leaves of St Luke belonging to Codex N of the
- Gospels?.

The Genesis leaves contain Gen. lil. 4—24, vil. I9g—vill. 20,
ix. 8—15, 20—27; xiv. I7—-20, xv. I—5, xix. I12—26, 29—35;
ΧΧΙΙ. 15-19, ΧΧῖν. I—II, I15—-20; xxiv. 22—31, xxv. 27—34, XXvl.
G—I11, Xxx. 30-37 ; Xxxi. 25-34; xxxil. I—18, 22——325; xxxv. I
-4, 8, 16—20, 28—29, xxxvll. I—IQ, ΧΧΧΙΧ. 9—18, xl. 14—xli. 2,
xli. 2I—32, xlil. 21—38, xlill. 2—21, xlvili. 16—xlix. 3, xlix. 28...
33, 1. I—-4.

Like the great Cotton MS. the Vienna purple Genesis is an
illustrated text, each page exhibiting a miniature painted in
water-colours. The writing belongs to the fifth or sixth century;
the provenance of the MS. is uncertain, but there are notes in
the codex which shew that it was at one time in North Italy.
Engravings of the miniatures with a description of the contents
may be found in P. Lambecii Comm. de bibliotheca Vindobonenst,
lib. 111. (ed. Kollar., 1776), and a transcript of the text in R.
Holmes’s Letter to Shute Barrington, Bishop of Durham (Oxford,
1795); but both these earlier authorities have been superseded by
the splendid photographic edition lately published at Vienna (de
Wiener Genesis herausgegeben von Wilhelm Ritter v. Hartel u.
Franz Wickhoff, Wien, 1895).

1 On the fragments of Judges see Moore, Judges, Ὁ. xlv.
2 On the latter see H. 5. Cronin, Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus,
Ῥ- Xxilil.

[40 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

M (X). CopEx COISLINIANUS. Paris, Bibliothéque Natio-
nale, Coisl. Gr. 1.

A MS. of the Octateuch and the Historical Books, with
lacunae; the 227 remaining leaves contain Gen. i. I—xxxiv. 2,
XXxVilil. 24—Num. xxix. 23, xxxi. 4—Jos. x. 6, Jos. xxii. 34—Ruth
iv. 19, I Regn. i. I—iv. 19, x. 19--τῖν. 26, xxv. 33—3 Regn. viii. 40.

This great codex was purchased in the East for M. Seguier,
and brought to Paris about the middle of the seventeenth cen-
tury. It was first described by Montfaucon, who devotes the
first 314 pages of his Bibliotheca Coisliniana to a careful descrip-
tion of the contents, dealing specially with the capitulation and
the letters prefixed to the sentences. Facsimiles were given by
Montfaucon, Bianchini (Evangelium quadruplex), Tischendorf
(Monumenta sacr. ined., 1846), and Silvester, and a photograph
of f. 125 r., containing Num. xxxv. 33—xxxvi. 13, may be seen in
H. Omont’s Facsimilés, planche vi. Montfaucon gives a partial
collation of the codex with the Roman edition of the Lxx., and
a collation of the whole was made for Holmes; a complete
collation is now being prepared by H. S. Cronin.

The leaves, which measure 13 x 9 inches, exhibit on each page
two columns of 49 or 50 lines, each line containing 18—23 letters.
According to Montfaucon, the codex was written in the sixth or
at latest in the seventh century (‘‘sexto vel cum tardissime sep-
timo saeculo exaratus”), but the later date is now usually ac-
cepted. The margins contain a large number of notes prima
manu, among which are the excerpts from the N. T. printed by
Tischendorf in the Wonumenta and now quoted as cod. F* of the
Gospels*. The MS. is said by Montfaucon to agree frequently
with the text of cod. A, and this is confirmed by Holmes as far
as regards the Pentateuch. Lagarde (Cenesis graece, p. 12)
styles it Hexaplaric; hexaplaric signs and matter abound in the
margins, and of these use has been made by Field so far as he
was able to collect them from Montfaucon and from Griesbach’s
excerpts printed in Eichhorn’s Repertorium.

Z* 4, FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA. ‘Two ofa series of
fragments of various MSS. discovered by Tischendorf and
printed in the first and second volumes of Monumenta sacra
inedita, nov. coll. i. ii. (1855, 1857).

Z*, Three palimpsest leaves containing fragments of 2—3
Regn. (2 Regn. xxii. 33—42, 46—49; xxiii. 2—5, 8—10; 3 Regn.

1 Other notes occur in a hand of the ninth century and in a late cursive
hand.
* Gregory, i. p. 3753 Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 134.

a ΨΆΝΝ

= ir ey a

Ss.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. I4I

ΧΙ]. 4—6, 8—II, 13—17, 20—23, xvl. 3I—33, xvll. I—5, 9—12,
14—17). The upper writing is Armenian, the lower an Egyptian-
Greek hand of the 7th century, resembling that of cod. Q (v.
7nfra).

Z4, Palimpsest fragment containing 3 Regn. viii. 58—ix. 1,
also from the Nitrian MSS. There are two texts over the Greek
of which the lower is Coptic, the upper Syriac ; the Greek hand
belongs to cent. v.

II. FRAGMENTA TISCHENDORFIANA.

Four leaves taken from the binding of Cod. Porfirianus Chio-
vensis (P of the Acts and Catholic Epistles!), and published by
Tischendorf in Mon. sacr. ined., nov. coll. vi. p. 339 ff. They
yield an interesting text of portions of 4 Maccabees (viii. 6,
12, 15, 29; ix. 28—30, 31—32). The writing appears to belong
torcent: 1X.

(C) Poetical Books.

I (13). Coprx Bopieianus. Oxford, Bodleian Library,
maces 1). A. τ.

A Psalter, including the Old Testament Canticles and a
catena. Described by Bruns in Eichhorn’s Repertortum, xiii.
p- 177; cf. Lagarde’s Genests graece, Ὁ. 11, and Nov. Psalt. Gr.
edit. Specimen, p. 3. Parsons, who reckons it among the cur-
Sives, is content to say “de saeculo quo exaratus fuerit nihil
dicitur”; according to Coxe (Catalogus codd. Biblioth. Bod. i.
621), it belongs to the 9th century.

R. CoprEx VERONENSIS. Verona, Chapter Library.

A MS. of the Psalter in Greek and Latin, both texts written
in Roman characters. A few /acunae (Ps. 1. I—ii. 7, ἶχν. 20—
Ixviii. 3, Ixvili. 26—33, cxv. 43—cvi. 2) have been supplied by a
later hand, which has also added the ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος (Ps. cli.).
The Psalms are followed Avzma manu by eight canticles (Exod.
xv. I—21, Deut. xxxii. I—44, 1 Regn. ii. I—10, Isa. v. I—9, Jon.
li. 3—10, Hab. iii. 1—10, Magnificat, Dan. iii. 23 ff.).

Printed by Bianchini in his Vzndictae canonicarum scriptura-
rum, 1. (Rome, 1740), and used by Lagarde in the apparatus of
his Specimen and Psalteriz Gr. guinguagena prima, and in the
Cambridge manual Septuagint (1891). A new collation was
made in 1892 by H. A. Redpath, which has been employed in

1 See Gregory, i. p. 447, Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 172 f.

142 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

the second edition of Zhe O. 7. in Greek (1896); but it is much
to be wished that the Verona Chapter may find it possible to
have this important Psalter photographed.

The codex consists of 405 leaves, measuring 104 x 74 inches;
each page contains 26 lines. The Greek text appears at each
opening on the left-hand page, and the Latin on the right.

T (262). Coprex Turicensis. Zurich, Municipal Library.

A purple MS. which contained originally 288 leaves; of these
223 remain. The text now begins at xxvi. (xxvii.) I, and there
are lacunae in the body of the MS. which involve the loss of Pss.
XXX. 2—XxXxXVi. 20, xli. 6—xlhili. 3, Iviii. 24—lix. 3, lix. g—10, 13—
Ix. 1, lxiv. 12—Ixxi. 4, xcii. 3—xcill. 7, xcvi. I2—xcvii. 8. The
first five Canticles and a part of the sixth have also disappeared ;
those which remain are 1 Regn. 11. 6—10 (the rest of the sixth),
the Magnificat, Isa. xxxviii. Io—20, the Prayer of Manasses},
Dan. 111. 23 ff., Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis.

Like Cod. R this MS. is of Western origin. It was intended
for Western use, as appears from the renderings of the Latin
(Gallican) version which have been copied into the margins by
a contemporary hand, and also from the liturgical divisions of
the Psalter. The archetype, however, was a Psalter written for
use in the East—a fact which is revealed by the survival in
the copy of occasional traces of the Greek στάσεις.

The characters are written in silver, gold, or vermilion,
according as they belong to the body of the text, the headings
and initial letters of the Psalms, or the marginal Latin readings.
Tischendorf, who published the text in the fourth volume of his
nova collectto (1869), ascribes the handwriting to the seventh
century.

The text of T agrees generally with that of cod. A, and still
more closely with the hand in cod. δὲ known as &™.

U. FrRaGMENTA LONDINENSIA. London, British Museum,
pap. Xxxvil.

Thirty leaves of papyrus which contain Ps. x. (xi.) 2 [eis
φαρέτραν---χν 1]. (xix.) 6, xx. (xxi.) 14 ἐν ταῖς δυναστείαις σου---
χχχῖν. (XXxV.) 6 καταδιώκ[]ν.

These fragments of a papyrus Psalter were purchased in
1836 from a traveller who had bought them at Thebes in Egypt,
where they had been found, it was said, among the ruins of a
convent. Tischendorf assigned to them a high antiquity (Pro-

1 Cf. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii. p. 17 fff.

etn ph - ae a aa ie i inl i κοντα... ..τώ......

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 143

legg.ad V.T. Gr., Ὁ. ix., “quo nullus codicum sacrorum antiquior
videtur”), and he was followed by Lagarde, who as late as 1887
described the London codex as “bibliorum omnium quos noverim
antiquissimus” (Specimen, p. 4). But a wider acquaintance with
the palaeography of papyri has corrected their estimate, and the
fragments are now ascribed by experts to cent. vi.—vii.t

The writing slopes, and the characters are irregularly formed ;
the scribe uses breathings and accents freely; on the other hand
he writes continuously, not even breaking off at the end of a
Psalm or distinguishing the title from the rest of the text. The
hand is not that of a learned scribe or of the literary type”.

X (258). CopEx Varticanus Iosi. Rome, Vatican
Library, Gr. 749.

A MS. of Job with occasional lacunae; the remaining por-
tions are i. I—xvli. 13, xvii. I17—xxx. 9, XXX. 23—XXXI. 5, ΧΧΧΙ. 24
—xxxiv. 35. There are miniatures, and a catena in an uncial
hand surrounding the text. At the beginning of the book Hexa-
plaric scholia are frequent’.

The text 1s written in a hand of the ninth century. It was
used by Parsons, and its Hexaplaric materials are borrowed by
Field*.

W (43). CopEx ParisIENsis. Paris, Bibliotheque Na-
tionale, Gr. 20.

A portion of an uncial Psalter containing in 4o leaves Ps.
XCl. [4—cxxxvl. I, with /acunae extending from Ps. cx. 7 to cxil.
Io, and from Ps. cxvii. 16—cxxvi. 4. So Omont (/zventatre
sommatre des mss. grecs, p. 4); according to Parsons (Praef. ad
libr. Pss.), followed generally by Lagarde (Genes¢s gr. 15), the
omissions are Ps. c. 4—ci. 7, cx. 6—cxi. 10, cxvii. 16—cxviii. 4,
CXVill. 176—cxxvi. 4.

The codex was written by a hand of the ninth or tenth
century, and contains paintings which, as ene had been
informed, are of some merit.

* See Catalogue of Ancient MSS. in the British Museum, i. (1881),
where there is a photograph of Ps. xxiii. τὸ ff., and Dr Kenyon’s Palaeo-
praphy of papyri, p. 116 f.

2 Kenyon, Joc. cit.
3 See E. Klostermann, Avalecta zur Septuaginta, &¢., p. 68.
ΡΝ, il. p.'2-

“ὐμμ

144 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

Z*. See above under (B), p. 140.

Fragments of the fourth or fifth cent. (Tisch.), containing Pss.
exli. (cxlii.) 7—8, cxlii. (cxlii.) I—3, cxliv. (cxlv.) 7—13.

(D) Prophets.

O (VIII). Fracmenta DuBLINENsIA. Dublin, Trinity
College Library, K. 3. 4.

Eight palimpsest leaves—in the original MS. folded as four—
which are now bound up with Codex Z of the Gospels! and yield
Isa. XxX. 2—XXxXI. 7, XXXVI. I9Q—xXXxVill. 2.

The original leaves of the Codex measured about 12x9g inches,
and each contained 36 lines of 14—17 letters. The writing, which
belongs to the early part of the sixth century, appears to be that
of an Egyptian scribe, and Ceriani is disposed to connect the
text of the fragments with the Hesychian recension”. They have
been printed in facsimile type by Professor T. K. Abbott (Par
palimpsestorum Dublinenstum, Dublin, 1880), and are used inthe _
apparatus of the Cambridge manual Septuagint.

Q (XII). Coprx MarcuHa.ianus. Rome, Vatican Library, |
Gr. 2125.

A magnificent codex of the Prophets, complete, and in the
order of cod. B (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah,
Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi ;
Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle, Ezekiel,
Daniel (Theod.) with Susanna and Bel).

This MS. was written in Egypt not later than the sixth century.
It seems to have remained there till the ninth, since the uncial
corrections and annotations as well as the text exhibit letters of
characteristically Egyptian form. From Egypt it was carried
before the 12th century to, South Italy, and thence into France,
where it became the property of the Abbey of St Denys near
Paris, and afterwards of René Marchal, from whom it has acquired
its name. From the library of R. Marchal it passed into the
hands of Cardinal F. Rochefoucauld, who in turn presented it to
the Jesuits of Clermont. Finally, in 1785 it was purchased for the
Vatican, where it now reposes.

The codex was used by J. Morinus, Wetstein and Montfaucon,
collated for Parsons, and printed in part by Tischendorf in the

1 See Gregory, i. p. 399 f.; Scrivener-Miller, i. p. 153.
2 Recensioni dei LXX., p. 6.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 145

ninth volume of his Wova Collectio (1870). Field followed
Montfaucon in making large use of the Hexaplaric matter with
which the margins of the MS. abound, but was compelled to
depend on earlier collations and a partial transcript. The
liberality of the Vatican has now placed within the reach of all
O.T. students a magnificent heliotype of the entire MS., accom-
panied (in a separate volume) by a commentary from the pen of
Ceriani (1890). This gift is only second in importance to that of
the photograph of Codex B, completed in the same year.

Codex Marchalianus at present consists of 416 leaves, but the
first twelve contain patristic matter, and did not form a part of
the original MS. The leaves measure 113 x7 inches; the writing
is in single columns of 29 lines, each line containing 24—30 letters.
The text of the Prophets belongs, according to Ceriani, to the
Hesychian recension; but Hexaplaric signs have been freely
added, and the margins supply copious extracts from Aquila,
Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Lxx. of the Hexapla. These
marginal annotations were added by a hand not much later than
that which wrote the text, and to the same hand are due the
patristic texts already mentioned, and two important notes! from
which we learn the sources of the Hexaplaric matter in the
margins. The result of its labours has been to render this codex
a principal authority for the Hexapla in the Prophetic Books.

Y. Coprex TAuRINENSIS. Turin, Royal Library, cod. 9.

This codex consists of 135 leaves in quarto, and contains the
δωδεκαπρόφητον. The MS. is difficult to read, and there are many
lacunae. The text, written according to Stroth? in the ninth
century, is surrounded by scholia, and prefaced by Theodoret’s
ὑποθέσεις to the various books. '

The Turin MS. does not appear to have been used hitherto
for any edition of the LXxX., nor has any transcript or collation
been published.

Z”°, See above, under (B), p. 146.

Z». Palimpsest fragments of Isaiah (iii. 8—14, v. 2—14, xxix.
11—23, xliv. 26—xlv. 5). Asin Z’, the upper writing is Armenian ;
the Greek hand belongs apparently to cent. viii.—ix.

Z°. Palimpsest fragment of Ezekiel (iv. 16—v. 4) found among
the Nitrian leaves at the British Museum. The Greek hand
resembles that of Z*, and is probably contemporary with it.

1 Printed in O. 7. ἐγ: Greek, iii.?, p. 81.
2 In Eichhorn’s Repertorium, viii. Ὁ, 202 f.

146 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

IT. CopEx CRYPTOFERRATENSIS. Basilian Monastery of

Grotta Ferrata, cod. E. β. vii.

This volume consists partly of palimpsest leaves which once
belonged to a great codex of the Prophets. A scribe of the 13th
century has written over the Biblical text liturgical matter accom-
panied by musical notation. Some portions of the book are
doubly palimpsest, having been used by an earlier scribe for a
work of St John of Damascus. About 130 leaves in the present
liturgical codex were taken from the Biblical MS., and the Biblical
text of 85 of these leaves has been transcribed and published (with
many lacunae where the lower writing could not be deciphered)
in Cozza-Luzi’s Sacrorum bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta, vol.
i. (Rome 1867).

The original codex seems to have contained 432 leaves
gathered in quires of eight; and the leaves appear to have
measured about τοῦ χ ὃ1 inches. The writing, which is in sloping
uncials of the eighth or ninth century, was arranged in double
columns, and each column contained 25—28 lines of 13—20
letters.

It cannot be said that Cozza’s transcript, much as Biblical
students are indebted to him for it, satisfies our needs. Uncial
codices of the Prophets are so few that we desiderate a photo-
graphic edition, or at least a fresh examination and more com-
plete collation of this interesting palimpsest.

A. FRAGMENTUM BODLEIANUM. Oxford, Bodleian Library,
MS. Gr. bibl. d. 2 (P).

A fragment of Bel in the version of Theodotion (21 γυναικῶν----
41 Δανιήλ). Avellum leaf brought from Egypt and purchased for
the Bodleian in 1888.

Written in an uncial hand of the fifth (?) century, partly over a
portion of a homily in a hand perhaps a century earlier.

The following uncial fragments have not been used for
any edition of the Lxx., and remain for the present without

a symbolical letter or number.

(1) A scrap of papyrus (B. M., Jap. cexii.) yielding the text
of Gen. xiv. 17. See Catalogue of Additions to the MSS.,
1888—93, p. 410. Cent. 11]. (?).

(2) The vellum fragment containing Lev. xxii. 3—xxlil. 22,
originally published by Brugsch (/Vewe Bruchstiiche des Cod.
Sin., Leipzig, 1875), who believed it to be a portion of Codex
Sinaiticus ; a more accurate transcription is given by J. R.
Harris, Biblical Fragments, no. 15 (cf. Mrs Lewis’s Studia Sin.
i,p.97f.). Cent. iv.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint. 147

(3) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing Num. xxxil. 29,
30 (J. R. Harris, of. 222.) no. 1). Cent. vii.

(4) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing a few words of
Jud. xx. 24—28 (J. R. Harris, of. cz¢., no. 2). Cent. iv.

(5) Another Sinaitic fragment, containing Ruth 11. 19—1ii. 1,
iii. 4—7 (J. R. Harris, of. cé¢., no. 3). Cent. iv.

(6) Part of a Psalter on papyrus (B. M., pap. ccxxx.), con-
taining Ps. xil. 7—xv. 4; see Athenaeum, Sept. 8, 1894, and
Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek Papyri, pp. 109,131. Cent. iil.

(7) Part of a Psalter on a Berlin papyrus, containing Ps. xl.
26—xli. 4; see Blass in Ζ. αὶ dgypt. Sprache, 1881 (Kenyon, of.
Rifle: 131).

(8) Nine fragments of a MS. written in columns of about
25 lines, one on each page. The fragments give the text of
Ps. ci. 3, 4, Cll. 5—8, αν. 34—43, ον]. I17—34, CVvill. 15---21,
cxill. 18—26, cxiv. 3—cxv. 2. J. R. Harris, of. 22 no. 4.
Cent: ‘iv:

(9) A vellum MS. in the Royal Library at Berlin (MS. Gr.
oct. 2), containing Ps. cxi.—cl., followed by the first four
canticles and parts of Ps. cv. and cant. v. See E. Kloster-
mann, Z. f. A. 7. W., 1897, p. 339 ff.

(10) Fragments discovered by H. A. Redpath at St Mark’s,
Venice, in the binding of cod. gr. 23, containing the text of
Prov. xxiil. 2I—xxiv. 35. Published in the Academy, Oct. 22,
1892. A fuller transcript is given by E. Klostermann, Azadecta,
pp: 34 ff.

(11) Portion of a leaf of a papyrus book, written in large
uncials of cent. vii.—vili., exhibiting Cant. i.6—g9. This scrap
came from the Fayim and is now in the Bodleian, where it is
numbered MS. Gr. bibl. g. τ (P); see Grenfell, Greek papyri
(Oxford, 1896), pp. 12 f.

(12) Palimpsest fragments of Wisdom and Sirach (cent. vi.—
vil.), carried by Tischendorf to St Petersburg and intended for
publication in the 8th volume of his lonzumenta, which never
appeared. See Nestle, Urtext, p. 74.

(13) Two palimpsest leaves of Sirach belonging to cod. 2 in
the Patriarchal Library at Jerusalem: cf. Papadopulos, Ἴεροσ.
BiBA., 1. p. 14: τὰ ἀναπληρωτικὰ φύλλα 27 καὶ 56 εἰσὶ παλίμψηστα
ὧν ἡ ἀρχικὴ γραφὴ ἀνήκει εἰς τὸν ε΄ αἰῶνα...τὸ παλαιὸν δὲ αὐτῶν
κείμενόν ἐστι δίστηλον, καὶ ἐν φυλ. 56 διακρίνεται ἡ ἐπιγραφή
οοφίδ incoY Υἱοῦ cipdy. The leaves contain Sir. prol. 1—i. 14,
i. 29—ill. 11. Printed by J. R. Harris, of. cé¢., no. 5.

(14) Part of a Papyrus book which seems to have contained
the Minor Prophets. The discovery of this fragment was
announced in 1892 by W. H. Heckler, who gave a facsimile
of Zach. xii. 2, 3 (‘Times,’ Sept. 7, 1892; ZYvansactions of the
Congress of Orientalists, 1892, ii., p. 331 f.). Mr Heckler

τος τ

148 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

claimed for this papyrus an extravagantly early date, but the
hand appears to belong to the seventh century; see Kenyon,
Palacography of papyrt, p. 118. When last seen, it was in the
shop of Th. Graf, a dealer at Vienna (z0., p. 24).

(15) Two leaves of a small vellum book, from the Faytim,
now Bodl. MS. Gr. bibl. e. 4 (P); the handwriting, “in small,
fine uncials,” yields the text of Zach. xii. 1o—I2, xiii. 3—5.
“About the fifth century” (Grenfell, Greek papyri, p. 11 f.).

(16) A Rainer papyrus, assigned to the third century and
containing Isa. xxxviil. 3—-5, 13-16; see Nestle, U/rtext, p. 74.

(17) A portion of a leaf of a papyrus book, bearing the
Greek text of Ezech. v. 12—vi. 3 (Bodl. MS. Gr. bibl. d. 4 (P));
see Grenfell, Greek papyri, pp. 9 ff. The text shews Hexaplaric
signs; the writing is said to belong to the third century (Kenyon,
Palaeography of papyrt, p. 107).

(18) A fragment of a lead roll on which is engraved Ps. ~
Ixxix (Ixxx). 1—16, found at Rhodes in 1898. See Sztzungsberichte —
a. konigl. Preuss. Akad. ad. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1898 —
(XXXVIL.).

II. CursivE MSS.

We proceed to give a list of cursive MSS. of the Greek Old
Testament, or of books belonging to it, limiting ourselves to
the codices used by Holmes and Parsons, with the addition
in the Octateuch of others which have been recently examined
or collated by the editors of the larger Cambridge Septuagint’.

(A) Zhe Octateuch.

14. Gen., Ex., ef. Rome, Vat. Palat.Gr. Klostermann, Azad.
Arist., cat.(x1) 203 p. 110,

15. Octateuch (ix— Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. Hexaplaric in early
x 2 books

16. Octateuch (xi) Florence, Laur. v. 38

17. Genesis, cat.(x) Moscow, Syn. 5 Vial. Batiffol, Vaz, p. 91

28
18. Octateuch (x— Florence, Laur. Med.
x1) Pal. 242 (formerly

at Fiesole)

1 The arabic numerals are the symbols employed by H. and P. For
descriptions of the unnumbered MSS., the wniter is indebted to Messrs
Brooke and M°Lean, and Mr Brooke has also assisted him in verifying
and correcting the earlier lists.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

149

19.
20.
Se
28.

29.

30.

. Octateuch,

Octateuch...... -
(?x)

Genesis (ix)

Gem, Ex, 2p.
Arist., cat. (x1)

Num., Deut.,
Jos., zperf.
(x1)

Octateuch (inc.

Gen. xliii. 15)
Octateuch (inc.
Gen. xxiv. 13)

(xi)

. Genesis, caz.(xiv)
2. Pentateuch (xii)

. Lectionary (A.D.

1116)

. Octateuch...(xv)

. Octateuch...(xv)

. Num. (ecz.), (xi)
. Octateuch...(xiv)
. Fragment of lec-

tionary

. Lectionary (xiii)
. Octateuch..., ep.

Ζ χ25 7: δ. (ΣΧ)

. Octateuch (A.D.

1439)

. Octateuch, ef. A-

vist. (xili—xiv)

. Octateuch...(xi)

. Octateuch...(A.D.

1093)
ep.
Arist., cat. (x1)

Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38

[Cod. Dorothei i.]

Munich, Stadtbibl.
Gr. 9

Rome, Vat. Gr. 2122
(formerly Basil.161)

Venice, St Mark’s,

(2
Rome, Casan. 1444
Vienna, Theol. Gr. 4
[Cod. Eugenii i.]
Moscow,

Vlad. ὃ
Eseurial; ¥. 11. 5

Syn / st,

Zittau, A. 1.1

Escurial

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr. 4

Oxford, Bodl. Baron.
201.

Oxford, Bodl. Seld. 30

Florence, Laur. Acq.

44
Paris, Nat.

yg
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.

Reg. Gr.

5
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr.
I

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.

3
Rome, Vat. Gr. 747

Bianchini, Vzzd., p.
279 ff.
Lucianic, Lagarde’s ἢ

Field, ni: Auct.:p.'3

Cf. Lagarde Geveszs,
p. 6, Septuagintast.
1 ΡΣ

Scrivener- Miller, i. p.
224

Hexaplaric, cf. Field,
1. p. 398

Lagarde’sz: see Gevze-
$25: 27-5 Do 7 Te and.
Lz0F IVOCTS Saas 1:
Ῥ- vi.; Scrivener-
Miller.) 1 pr 26m
Redpath, Exp. T.,
May 1897

O.T. exc. Psalter

Field, i. p. 223. La-
garde’s &

Part of a complete
Bible, cf. Kloster-
mann, p. 12

Lagarde’s 2

Field, i. pp. 5, 78

1 Dots in this position shew that the MS. extends beyond the Octateuch.

73:

74.
75:
76.
77:
78.

79.
82.

83.

84.
85.

93-

. Pentateuch

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

(xiii)

. Octateuch (xv)

. Lectionary (xi)

Jos., Jud., Ruth
(imperf.) (x)

. Octatéuch ...\(x

—x1)

. Octateuch...(xv)

. Jos., Jud., Ruth

(Ki)

. Octateuch...(xiii)
. Octateuch,..(xiil)

Octateuch, 67.
Arist. (part),
cat. (xil1)

Octateuch...(xiv)

Octateuch (A.D.
1126)

Octateuch...(xili)

Octateuch, caz.
(xiil)

Geng! Ex. vae.
(xiii)

Gen., ep. Avist.,
cat. (x11)

Octateuch...(xil)

Pentateuch, caz.
(xvi)

Heptateuch (277-

perf.) (x)

Heptateuch (z7-

perf, (xi)
Ruth... (xiii)

Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr.

IO
Glasgow, Univ. BE.
"Ὁ, 10 (formerly at
C.C.C., Oxford)
Oxford, Bodl. Laud.

5
Rome, Vat. 1252
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
Venice, St Mark’s,

(G15
Munich, Gr. 372 (for-
merly at Augsburg)
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1
Oxford, Bod]. Canon.
Gr. 35 (formerly at
Venice; see:H= P.)
Rome, Vat. Gr. 746

Florence, Laur. Acq.

700 (49) Υ
Oxford, Univ. Coll. 111.

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4
Rome, Vat. Gr. 748

Rome, Vat. Gr. 383

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1668

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.

Lisbon, Archivio. da
Torre da Tombo
540 &c. (formerly
at Evora)

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1901

Rome, Vat. Gr. 2058
(formerly Basil. 97)

London, B. M. Reg.
i DP. 2

Field, i. p. 78

Scrivener- Miller, i. p.

329
Klostermann, p. 12

Field, i. p. 5

O.and N.T.

O. and N.T. Scrive-
ner- Miller, i. p. 219

Hexaplaric. Tischen-
dorf in £. ΞΕ

1867 (27)
Field, i. p. 78

Hesychian (?)
Lagarde’s 0. Horne-

mann, p. 41; Owen,
Enguiry, p. 90

Field, i. p. 78

Lagarde’s f

Hesychian (?)

Field, i. pp. 78, 397
(“praestantissimi
codicis”)

Lucianic (Lagarde’s
721)

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

94= 131

105. Exod. xiv. 6—26
&c. (xili—xiv)

106. Octateuch...(xv)

107. Octateuch...(A.D.

13

334 }
108. Octateuch...(xiv)

118. Octateuch (Ζ72-
perf.) (xiii)

. Octateuch...(xi)
. Octateuch (x)

. Octateuch...(xv)

. Octateuch...(xv)

56. Heptateuch......
pal. 222. Gen; EEX.

(A.D. 1475)
127. Octateuch... (x)

128. Octateuch (xii)

129. Octateuch (xiii)
130. Octateuch (? xi)

Zon. Octateuch ......
(x—x1i)

132. Lectionary (pa-
limpsest, xi—
X11)

133. Excerpts from

MSS.byI.Voss
. Octateuch... (xi)

London, B. M. Bur-
ney

Ferrara, Bibl. Comm.
Gr. 187

Ferrara, Bibl. Comm.
Gr. 188
Rome, Vat. Gr. 330

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
6

Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr. 4

Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr.

Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr. 6

Moscow, Syn. 30,
Vlad. 3

Moscow, Syn. 19,
Vlad. 38

Moscow, Syn. 31a,
Viad. 1

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1657,
formerly Grotta fer-
rata

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1252
Vienna, Th. Gr. 57

Vienna, Th. Gr. 23

Oxford, Bodl. Selden.
9

Leyden, Univ.

Florence, Laur. v. I

15!

Hesychian (9). O.T.,
Nin: (582. Greg.,
451 Scr.). Lagarde,
Ank. p. 27

Lagarde, zd.

Field, 1.'p. 5. Luci-
anic text (Lagarde’s
4)

Lucianic (Lagarde’s

2)

Θ᾽ δ iN. {δ.:
206) in Latin order.
Copy of 68

Field;;. 3. payiga Las
garde, Azk. Ὁ. 3
Field, i. pp. 168, 224

See note to 63

Field;.,i..«px, G4 ,La-
garde, Azk. p. 26.
See note to 131

Field, a. pay 5s,
enumeratione Hol-
mesiana [cod. 130]
perverse designatur
131, et vice versa.”
O. andiNn. Ὑ

Hesychian (?)

152

135. Gen., Ex. i. 1—
xli. 4, cat. (xi)

136. Excerpts from
Pentateuch
(A.D. 1043)

209. Jos., Jud., Ruth,
cat. (xii)

236. Jos., Jud., Ruth
εος (I

5357. = fs

241. Jos., Jud., Ruth
ἀρ (XVil)

246. Octateuch
(xiil)

eeeeee

Josh.—Ruth (x
—x1)
Octateuch,
(xii—xill)
Lev.—Ruth, caz.
(A.D. 1104)
Lev.—Ruth, caz.
(A.D. 1264)
Jos.—Ruth
comm. (xii)
Octateuch
schol.
Heptateuch (z7-
perf.) (xiii)
Lev.—Ruth, caz.
(xiii)
Octateuch...(xiv)

Octateuch, ef.
Arist., cat. (xi)

Cat.

Ex.—Ruth, caz.
(xv)
Octateuch, ef.

Arist., cat.(xiil)
Gen.—Ex. (zm-
perf.) ep. A rist.,

cat. (xv)

Basle, A. N. iil. 13

Oxford, Bodl. Barocc.

196
[Cod. Dorothei iv]

Rome, Vat. Gr. 331

London, B. M. Harl.

7522
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238

London, B.M. Add.

20002

London, B.M. Add.

35123
Lambeth, 1214

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
5
Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.

7
Paris, Arsenal 8415

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.

184

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
6

Paris, Nat. Suppl.
Gr. 609

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
128

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
132

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
129

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
130

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

Field, i. p. 6. La-
garde’s 7 (Genests,
p- 6). Hexaplaric

Klostermann, p. 78

P. Young’s copy of
Cod. A

Cf. Batiffol, @ 2 Ζ2)1-
portant MS. des
Septante, in Aul-
letin Critique, 15
March, 1889

Continuation of E (p.
134)

Hexaplaric readings

Lucianic (?)

Hesychian (?)

Hexaplaric readings

Hexaplaric readings

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

153

Ex.(¢mperf.), cat.
(xvi)

Gen. i.—iii.(?),
comm. (palim.)
(xiii)

Gere, 2x, “ep.
Arist., cat.
(A.D. 1586)

Octateuch... (272-
perf.) (xi)

Octateuch,
(x1li)

Exod. — Deut.
(cmeperf.) (Xi)...

cat.

Gen, Πα 27.
Arist.,Cat.(xvi)
Jos.—Ruth... (x)

Octateuch, ef.
A rist.,cat.(xili)
Gen. iv.—v., Ex.
Xl. — XXViil.,
comm. (ΧΙ)
Octateuch,
(? x11)
Gen., cat. (xvi)
Num.—Ruth ...
(xiv—xv)
Hexateuch... (x)
Gen.—Jos. (z7-
perf.)... (X—x1)
Gen., comm.
Chrys.
Joshua—Ruth...
cat. (x11)
Octateuch (x)
Octateuch...
—xi)
Octateuch
(A.D. 1021)
Lev.—Ruth, caz.
(xi—x1i1)
Ex.—Ruth
(xiv)

cat.

(x

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. Hexaplaric readings
131 (interlinear)
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
161

Escurial 3. i. 16 Hexaplaric readings

Escurial ©. i. 13

Leyden, 13 (belongs
to Voss collection)

Leipzig, Univ. Libr.
Gr. 361

Hexaplaric readings.
Published by Fis-
cher in 1767 = Lips.
(Ho Py

Munich, Gr. 82

Munich, Gr. 454 (for-
merly at Augsburg)

Zurich, Bibl. de la Hexaplaric matter
ville, c. 11

Basle, ©. i. 17

Rome, Barb. Gr. iv.
6

5
Rome, Barb. Gr. vi. 8
Rome, Vat. Gr. 332

Grotta Ferrata Y.y. I

St Petersburg, Imp. Continuation of E (p.
Libr. 1xii 134)

Moscow, Syn. Vlad.

35
Athos, Ivér. 15

Athos, Pantocr. 24 Hexaplaric readings

Athos, Vatop. 511
Athos, Vatop. 513
Athos, Vatop. 515

Hexaplaric readings,

Athos, Vatop. 516
much faded

[54

το:

20...

38...

44...

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

Pentateuch (z-
perf.), (A.D.
1327)

Octateuch (A.D.

1013)
Genesis, caz.(?x1)

Octateuch... cat.

(xi)
Octateuch...(xii1)
Octateuch, cat.

LNViceph. (xii)
Pentateuch, cat.
(xi)
Num. — Ruth,
cat. (x1)
Heptateuch (z7-
perf.) (xiii)
Pentateuch, Ζε5ζ.
xt. patr. (xv)

Octateuch... (x
—x1)

Pentateuch, café.
(? x)

Octateuch... (ix
med. )

Genesis, caz. (xli
—xill)

Athos, Protat. 53 Hexaplaric readings

Athos, Laur. y. 112 Hexaplaric readings
(a few)

Constantinople,
(formerly 372)

Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43

224

Athens, Bibl. Nat. 44 Lucianic (?)
Smyrna, σχολὴ evayy.
I

Patmos, 216

Patmos, 217

Patmos, 410

Patmos, 411

Sinai, I

Sinai, 2

Jerusalem, H. Sepul-
chre 2

Jerusalem, H. Sepul-
chre 3

(B) Historical Books.

I Regn.,2 Esdr.,
Judith, Esth.,
1—3 Macc.,&c.

3 Macc.
perf.), &c. (x)
I Regn., 2 Regn.
i. I—xx. 18 (xv)
I Regn.,2 Esdr.,
I—4 Macc.,
Esth., Judith,
Tow. CN. 71.)
&c. (xv)

Rome, Chigi R. vi. 38

Venice, St Mark’s,

Gr. 2
Escurial, Y. 11. 5

Zittau, A. I. I

1 Dots before the name of the first book quoted indicate that the MS.
has already appeared under (A), where fuller information may be sought.
This note applies mz¢atis mutandis to (C) and (D).

46.

σι
WN

55:

56.

60.

64...

68...

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

1 Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Esth., Judith,
I—4 #Macc.,
Teh...

...I Regn.—2 Esdr.,

Esth., Judith,
I—4 1 1£Macc.,
Tob., schol. (x)
.-I Regn.-2 Esdr.,
Judith, Esth.,
Tob., I—4
Macc. (x1)
..I—4 Regn., 1—
2 Chron., 1—2
Macc. (xil)

..-.I—4 Regn., I—

2 Chron., 1—2
Esdr,; ‘Jud,
Tob. Esth;
&c. (xiii)

1-2 Chron. (?x1i)

I Regn.-2 Esdr.,
Hsth.- / -Tob.,
1-- Macc. (x)

1 Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Esth., Judith,
Tob., I—3
Macc.... (xv)

70..,1-4 Regn., parts
of Chron., Tob.
(x1)

2... Esdr:, I—3
Macc., Esth.,
Judith, Tob.
(xiil)

74...1—2 Esdr., 1—4
Macc., Esth.,
Judith, Tob.
(xiv)

76...Esth., Judith,
Tob. (xii)

82...1—4 Regn. (xii

92.

—x111)
I—4 Regn. (x)

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
4

Florence, Laur. Acq.
44

Rome, Vat. Regin.

Gr. I

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 3

Rome, Vat. Regin.
Gr. τὸ
Cambridge, Univ.

Pibe, FE 1.24
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr.
2

Venice; St “Mark's;

Grrs

Munich, Gr. 372 (for-
merly at Augsburg)

Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 1
Florence, St Mark’s
Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
3
Paris, Nat. Gr. 8

155

Walton, Polygl. vi.
121 if; J. Ri Harris:
Origin of Leicester
Cod., p- 21

Field, i. p. 486

156

93

98.

106

107.

108

120

...I-2 Esdr.,Esth.,
1-3 Macc. (xiii)

I—4 Regn., 1—2
Chron., caz.

...I Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Judith, Esth.,
I—2 Macc.

1 Regn.—2 Esdr.,
I—3 1.Macc.,
Esth., Judith,
Tob.(A.D.1334)

...I Regn.—2 Esdr.,

Judith, Tob.,
Esth. (xiv)

. I—4 Regn., 1—2
Chron., I—2
Esdr. (x)

...l Regn.-2 Esdr.,
I—4 +.Macc.,
Esth. (xi)

...I Regn.—2 Esdr.

(x
...Historical Bks.,
oa LEV)
. I—4 Regn. (xi)
...Historical Bks.,

τευ.
... Judith, Tob. (xv)
...I—4 Regn., I—
2 Chron. xxxvi.
(x)!
...-Historical Bks.

(exc. 4 Macc.)
(? xi)

4...1 Regn.—2 Esdr.,

1 Macc. (x)

. I—4 Regn., 1—2
Chron.

...I Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Esth., Judith,
Tob., I—4
Mace. (xil)

...I—4 Regn.,1—2
Chron.

I—4 Regn.
I—4 Regn.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

London, B. M. Reg.
᾿ ΤΣ
Escurial, Σ. 2. 19

Ferrara, Bibl. Comm.
Gr. 187

Ferrara, Bibl. Comm.
Gr. 188
Rome, Vat. Gr. 330 Cf. Field, i. p. 702

Paris) Nat.'Gr. 7

Venice, St Mark’s,

Gr. 4

Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr.

Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr. 6

{Cod. Dorothei v. ]
Moscow, Syn. 30,

Vlad. 3

Moscow, Syn. 19,
Viad. 38

Moscow, Syn. 314,
Vlad. 1

Vienna, Th. Gr. 23

Florence, Laur. v. I

Basle, B. 6. 22 Wetstein, VV. Z. i. p.
132
Rome, Vat. Gr. 331

London, B. M. Harl.
7522
Vienna, Th. Gr. 5
Paris, Nat. Coisl. 8 Field, i. p. 486

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

157

243*. 1—4 Regn.(caz.),
I Chron.—z2

Hisar, » Esth.,
Tob., Jud.,1—4
Macc.
244. I—4 Regn. (x)
245. I Regn. (ix—x)
246...1 Regn. (xiii)
247. I Regn. (x)

248...I—2Esdr.,Tob.,
Judith, Esth.,
&c. (xiv)

Historical Bks.
(xi)

...-I Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Esth., Tob.
...Judith, I—3

Macc. (3 M.
imperf.) (xi)
..-I Regn.—2 Chron.

(x)
«1 Regn.—3 Regn.
και: 28 (x or xi)
22, LOD.) .;- Judith,
Esth., Ruth (x)
... Tobit (xiv or xv)
ie esdr... Tobit
(fragments) (x

art...

or x1)
...Esth., Judith,
Tob.,1-4Regn.
(x or xi)
atisth., Tob.,
Judith (A.D.
1021)

...I-2 Chron. (xiv)
..I—4 Regn., cat.
(xi)

..-I Regn.—2 Esdr.,
Esth., Judith,
Tob. (xiii)

--I—4 Regn.,; 1—
2 Chron. (xiv)

«1 Regn.—2 Esdr.,
4 /.Maec.,
Esth., Judith,
Tob. (xiv)

Venice, δὲ

cod. 16

222

Rome, Vat. Gr. 333
Rome, Vat. Gr. 334
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1238
Rome, Vat. Gr. Urb. 1
Rome, Vat. Gr. 346

Moscow, Syn. 341

Escurial, Q. 1.13

Munich, Gr. 454 (?for-

merly at Augsburg) _

St Petersburg, Imp.
Libr. ixii.

Grotta Ferrata, A. y. I
(catal., 29)

Rome, Vat. Gr. 332

Leipzig, Univ. Libr.
(τ 261

Athos, Vatop. 511
Athos, Vatop. 513

Athos, Vatop. 516
Athens, Bibl. Nat. 43

Athens, Bibl. Nat. 44

Paris, Arsenal 8415

Paris, Nat. Suppl. Gr.
609

Mark’s,

Field, i. p. 486

Lucianic (Field)

Nestle, JZarg. p. 58

Hexaplaric readings

158

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

..I—4 Regn. (xi)
..1 Regn.-2 Esdr.,

Judith, Esth.,
Tob.,1-4Macc.

13. =I (see under
Uncial MSS.)

21. Psalms, schol.
(xiii—xiv)

27. Psalms i—lxx

39. Psalms (zweferf.)
(ix)

43. =W (see under
Uncial MSS.)

AG... sPFOV., Eccl,
Cant., Job,
Sap, olf, Up-
vos τῶν Tat.
ἡμῶν (xiv)

55..-JOb, Psalms
(0 Ξ|)

65. Psalms, cant.,
Lat. (xi)

66. Psalms, caved.
(xiv)

67. Psalms, cazt.
(xvl)

68...Poetical Books
(xv)

69. Psalms, cave.
(? x)

80. Psalms, cant.
(xili—x1v)

81. Psalms (xi)

Ioo.

ΙΟΙ.

. Psalms,

schol.,
cant. (xii—xiil)

Psalms, cant.
(xi—x1i)

Psalms,
(xii1)

cant.

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.

7
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. I

(C) Poetical Books.

[Cod. Eugenii iv. ]

Gotha, formerly Loth-
ringen

[Cod. Dorothei ii.]

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.
4

Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr.
ease

Eton Coll.

Oxford, C.C.C. 19

Venice, St Mark's,
Gr. 5
Oxford, Magd. Coll. 9

Oxford, Christ Ch. A

Oxford, Christ Ch. 2
Oxford, Trin. Coll. 78

Oxford, Christ Ch. 3
Oxford, Christ Ch. 20

An uncial MS., La-
garde’s M(8) (.Spe-
cimen, p. 27)

An uncial MS., La-
garde’s El?) (SZe-
cimen, p. 2)

Lagarde’s F(?s) (Se-
clmen, Ὁ. 2)

Harris, Lezcester Co-
dex, p. 20

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

102. Psalms, cazt.
(Χ111)

103. Prov. i.—XI1x.
(xv)

104. Psalms i.-x. (xvi)

107...Job,Prov.,Eccl.,
Cant.,Sap., Sir.
--- Psalms (xv)

109. Proverbs... (xiil)

110. Job, schol. (ix)

111. Psalms (ix)

112. Psalms, ca¢.(A.D.
961)

113. Psalms, 0772771.
(A.D. 967)

114...Psalms, com.

115. Psalms, come.

122...Poetical Books
(xv)

124. Psalms, cazez.

125...Proverbs (coms.
Chrys.), Eccl,
Cant., Sap. (xv)

131...Poetical Books,
&c. (Ὁ xil)

137. Job, caz. (xi—x11)

138. Job (x)
139. Proverbs—Job
(x)

140. Psalms
141. Psalms
1344)

142. Psalms, comm.

143. Psalms, proven.

144=131

145. Psalms, cant. (x)

146. Psalms (x)

147. Prov.—Job, caz.
iv (5401)

149. Job, Prov., Eccl.,
Cant. /Sap.,
Pss.Sal.,comm.
(xi)

150. Psalms (? xiv)

151. Psalms (z7perf)

152. Psalms (xi)

(A.D.

Oxford, Christ Ch. 1
Vienna, Th. Gr. 25

Vienna, Th. Gr. 27
Ferrara, Bibl. Comm.
Gr. 188

Vienna, Th. Gr. 26
Vienna, Th. Gr. 9:

Milan, Ambr. P. 65
Milan, Ambr. F. 12

Milan, Ambr. B. 106

Evora, Carthus. 2

Evora, Carthus. 3

Venice, St Mark’s,
Gr. 6

Vienna, Th. Gr. 21

Moscow, Syn. 30,
Vlad. 3

Vienna, Fh. Gr! 23
Milan, Ambr. D. 73

Milan, Ambr. M. 65
Milan, Ambr. A. 148

Basle, B. Io. 33
Turin, B. 2. 42

Vienna, Th. Gr. Io
Vienna, Th. Gr. 19

Velletri, Borg.
[Cod. Fr. Xavier]
Oxford, Bodl. Laud.

30
Vienna, Th. Gr. 7

Ferrara, Carmelit. 3
Venice, Bibl. Zen.
(Cod. Nani)

159

Klostermann, pp. 6,
18

Klostermann, p. 18

Field, ΡΣ dad
Auct. p. 5

Field, ii. p. 2

Field, 11, p72

Klostermann, p. 51
= 308*H. P. See Geb-

hardt, Dze Psalmen
Salomo’s, p. 15

A Graeco-Latin MS.

ς cel,

. Psalms,

. Psalms,

. Psalms
. Psalms,
. Psalms,

. Psalms,

. Psalms

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

. Psalms (xii)
. Psalms

(x1i—
ΧΙ)

. Psalms, zzferlin.

Ii.

; Job, Prov., Ecel.,

Cant., Sap.
Prov.
(part), Cant.,
schol. (xi)

. Job (xiv)
- Job; Proy:, Eccl,

Cant. (xiv)

. Psalms, zzterlin.

Latin (xi)

. Psalms (xii)
. Psalms (xiv)

. Psalms (xiv)

cant.
(A.D. 1283)
cant.
(xiv)

. Psalms (2mperf.)

(xi—xil)

(xil—
xiil)

cant.
(x11)

cant.
(xiv)

cant.
(A.D. 1488)

. Psalms, cazz.

(Latin,
Arabic) (A.D.

1153)

. Psalms (xi)
. Psalms, cazz.

(Cod. Meermanni I)

(Cod. Meermanni II)

Basle, A: 7.3

Basle, B. 6.

Dresden,

Dresden,
Dresden,

Paris, Nat.

24

Paris, Nat.

Gr. 26
London,
baa
London,

5534
London,

5535
London,

5558

London,

5570

London,

5571
London,

5582
London,
5653
London,

5X37
London,

5738
London,
5786

London, B. M.2.A.vi.
London, B. M. Harl.

5563

I

2
2
J

B.

a ΩΞ ΘῈ ἐπ τὉΞ οἱ Ὁ ὦ ὦ

Bo τ Ἂν

Reg, Gr.
Colbert.

Μ.
Μ.

ἘΝῚ Ὁ

Harl.
Harl.
Harl.
Harl.
soar
Harl.
Harl.
ὉΠ ΠῚ];
Harl.
Harl.
Harl.

An uncial MS. La-
garde’s Dl?) (SHec-
men, p. 2, cf. Ank.

Ρ. 27)
Wetstein, JV. 7, i. 32

Klostermann, p. 39

Field, ii... p.j.25) Chis
309, and Auct. 22.
Cf. Klostermann,

pp. 16, 39

177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
192.
183.
184.
185.
186.

187.
188.

189.
190.

191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.

109.
200.

201.

202.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

Psalms (2,297)
cant. (xiil)

Psalms, cant.
(A.D. 1059)

Psalms, cant.
(xii)

Psalms, cant.
(xii)

Psalms, ca¢. (xi1)

Psalms, σαι. (xi)

Psalms, cant.
(xil)

Psalms, comm.
(ix—x)
Psalms, comm.
(xi)

Psalms, comm.
(x1)

Psalms (zwzferf.)
Psalms (z7per/.)

Psalms, cant.
Psalms (zuzperf.)
cane,

Psalms, cazdé.

Psalms (zmperf.)
cant. (xiii)
Psalms, καῖ.
(xi)

Psalms, cant.
(xii)

Psalms, cazz.
(xii)

Psalms (inc. 1].

3), cant. (xil)
Psalms, εἴ).
(xiv)
Psalms (xi)
Psalms, cazz.

Psalms, cazzt.

Psalms,
comm.

Ss: Ss.

cant.,

161

Paris, Nat. Gr. 27
Paris, Nat. Gr. 40
Paris, Nat. Gr. 41
Paris, Nat. Gr. 42

Cod. DucisSaxo-Goth.
Rome, Chigi 4
Rome, Chigi 5

Vienna, Th. Gr. 17
Vienna, Th. Gr. 18
Vienna, Th. Gr. 13

St Germain ΤῸ

St Germain 186 An uncial MS. La-
garde’s H() (Sfecz-
men, p. 3). Often
agrees with 156

St Germain 13

St Germain 187 An uncial MS. La-
garde’s Κίρβ) (SHecz-
MeN, Ὁ. 3)

St Germain 188

Paris, Nat. Gr. 13

Paris, Nat. Gr. 21

Paris, Nat. Gr. 22

Paris, Nat. Gr. 25

Paris, Nat. Gr. 25

Paris, Nat. Gr. 29

Modena, Est. 37

Oxford, Bodl. Barocc. Cf. Nestle, Septua-
15 gintastud. lil. p. 14

Oxford, Bodl. Barocc.

107
Oxford, Bodl. Cromw.
IIO

EE

162

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

cant.,

203. Psalms,
prayers (A.D.
1336)

204. Psalms (zmferf.)
schol., prayers

205. Psalms, cant.

206. Psalms, cant,
(xiv)

208. Psalms (zfer/.),
cant.

210. Psalms (xiv)

211. Psalms,. . cami.
(xiii)

212. Psalms (zmferf.)
(x11)

213. Psalms (zwzferf.)
(x1il)

214. Psalms, cant.
(xiii)

215. Psalms, caved.
(A.D. IOIT)

216. Psalms, cant. (x)

217. Psalms,” cant.
(A.D. 1029)

218. Psalms, li.—liii.
(xlli—xiv)

219. Psalms, canz.

220= 186

221. Psalms, ix.—cl.,
coum.

222. Psalms, cazzt.

223. Psalms, φῶ).

225. Psalms, ζῶ]:
(x1)

226. Psalms, cant.,
prayers (x)

227. Psalms (zmperf.)
cant., prayers
x

228. Job, &c. (xiii)

2 ΓΟ ΕΙΟν,» δ σον
Cant.

248... Prov., Eccl,
Cant., Job,

Sap., sir., &c.
(xiv)

Oxford, Bodl. Laud.

ai

Oxford, Bodl. Laud.
58

Cambridge, Trin.
Coll.

Cambridge, Gonville Facsimile in Harris,
& Caius Coll. 348 Leicester codex
Tubingen, (cod.
Schnurrer)
[Cod. Demetrii v.]
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1541

Rome, Vat. Gr.

1542

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1848

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1870

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1873 Klostermann, p. 13
Gr.

Gr.

Rome, Vat.
Rome, Vat.

1927
341

?

Vienna, Th. Gr.
Vienna, Th. Gr.
Vienna, Th. Gr.

Vienna, Th. Gr. 21
Vienna, Th. Gr. 22
Bologna, 720

Rome, Barber. I

Rome, Barber. 2

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764

London, B. M. Harl.
7522

Rome, Vat. Gr. 346 Hexaplaric readings.

Field, ii. p. 2

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

7 3.

. Job
. Job, cat, Psalms

5 Jou pea, ir;

&c.
(xiv)

(xiv)

jee rov., Eccl.,

Cant. (ix—x)

pagent τὸν. (xi—

XIv)

7 Ob,, Prov.’ (Xiil)
. Job

. Job, schol. (xii)
. Job, comm. (x)
. Job, cat, pzct.(ix)

(ix)

. Job, schol. (x)
, Job, caz., Prov.

7 Job, Prov., E-ccl.,

Sap. (xiv)

. Psalms

. Psalms, cat.

= Psalms,.. canz.,
pict. (xiv)

. Psalms (impertf.)
(xii1)

. Psalms, cant.
(xiv)

. Psalms, comz..,
cant,

. Psalms, comm.
Athen. (A.D.
897)

. Psalms, caz7.
(xil)

. Psalms, comm.
(xi)

. Psalms (imperf.)

cat. (xili)
Psalms, cazé. (xiv)

Rome, Vat. Pius 1 Field, 2. ¢.

Munich, Elect. 148
Florence, Laur. v. 27

Field, ὦ. δ.

Florence, Laur. vill. Field, /.¢.; cf. p. 309

27 and Auct. p. 2
Rome, Vat. Gr. 336 Klostermann, 17
ff. Gebhardt, Dze
Psalmen Salomo’s
p. 25yil-
Rome, Vat. Gr. 337
Rome, Vat. Gr. 338 _Field,ii.p.2. Kloster-
mann, p. 69 ff.
Rome; Vat. Gr. 697 “ Field, 25 δ.
Rome, Vat. Gr. 743
Rome, Vat. Gr. 749 Field, 7c. Kloster-
mann, p. 68
Rome, Vat. Gr. 230 ‘Field, ΖΦ Kloster-
mann, p. II
Copenhagen, Royal
Libr;
Florence, Laur. vil. 30
Copenhagen, Royal
Lib.

Rome, Vat. Gr. 398 Cf. Field, ii. p. 84f.,

and Auct. p. II

Rome, Vat. Gr. 381

Rome, Vat. Gr. 2101

Rome, Vat. Gr. 294

Rome, Vat. Gr. 2057 Cf. Field, ii. p. 84

Rome, Vat. Gr. Pal.
44

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1864
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1747
Rome, Vat. Gr. 247

Rome, Vat., Reg. Gr.
40

Cf. Field, ii. p. 84

1.1---

164

274.
275.

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

Psalms (zperf.)
comm. (Χ111)
Psalms,camz.(xil)

2976= 221

27,7:
278.

. Psalms,

. Psalms,

. Psalms,

. Psalms,

. Psalms,

Psalms, cazz.

Psalms (χι:--
ΧΙ)

cant.

(xili—xiv)

. Psalms (x1)
. Psalms (xi)
. Psalms (xv)
. Psalms (x11)
. Psalms,

cant.
(xiv)
cant.
(xill)
comm.

(xi1)

. Psalms (Ζ7,129477..)

comm. (x11)
comm.
Thdt. (xii)
comm.
Euth.-Zig.

(xiil)

. Psalms, cazzz.

. Psalms (xi—xi1)
. Psalms, caz. (xi)
. Psalms,

m1etr.

paraphr. (xv)

, Psalms, ΠΕ ΧΙ. 14,

—]xxxl. 7,CXXVii.
3 — cxxix. 6,
Cxxxv. II —
CXXXV1. 1,
CXXxvil. 4—cxli.
21 (? xill)

Rome, Vat. Gr.
Rome, Vat. Gr.

Vienna, Th. Gr.
Florence, Laur.

Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.

Florence, Laur.

Florence, Laur.

Florence, Laur. i

Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.
Florence, Laur.

Cambridge,
nuel College

343
1874

24
Vv. 23

v. 39
Vi. 3
Vi 37

Emma- Lagarde calls it P in

Genesis graece, but
N(s) in the Sfecz-
men. Apparently a
copy in a Western
hand of an early
cursive Psalter; see
M. R. James in }
Proceedings of the
Cambridge Antt-
guarian Society,
1892—3, p. 168 ff.1 *

1 Other Psalters used by Lagarde (Specimen, p. 3 f.) are St Gall 17 (ix).

=G®); Munich 251 = LP");

a Bamberg Graeco-Latin MS. and a Cologne

MS. closely related to it, which he calls W and Z respectively.

205:

to
to

ι 0
Oe

LoS)
Oo

48.

49.

wicant.,

. Prophets

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

Prov., 407)1771.

Procop. (xiv)

. Prov.—Sir. (xill)

. Prov., com. (xii)
. Eccl., comme. (xil)
ἘΠΕ ΘΟΙῸ

Comm.
Greg. Nyss., al.
(xiil)

comm.
(x11)

# DiOV....x)—109

(D)

(x1—
X11)
Isaiah, caz. (xi)

. Prophets (? x1)

pela.) ἘΠῚ Ἰξῶζ.

(x)

4 anes (xit)
. Dan. (xi)
. Prophets (xiii)

. Dodecaprophe-

ton (xil)

. Isa., Jer. (ix—x)
Ὑ ezek.. Dan; (Gx

—x1l1)

erlisds, Crs; -bar.,
Lam., Ep.
Ezek... Dan:,
Minor Pro-

phets... (xiv)
Prophets (xi)

Prophets (x1)

Rome, Vat.

Gr. 56

Rome, Vat. Palat. Gr.

337
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1802
[Cod. Eugenii 3]
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1694

[Cod. Eugenii 3]

London, B. M. Reg.

1. Bs 2
[Cod. Demetrii i.]
Rome, Vat. Gr.

Rome, Vat. Gr.

Rome, Vat. Gr. 803
Rome, Vat. Gr. 866
Rome, Vat. Gr. 347

[Cod. Dorothei iii.]
[Cod. Demetrii i1.]

Paris, Nat. Coisl. Gr.

4

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1794

Florence, Laur. xi. 4

Ottob.

165

Klostermann, p. 29 f.

Prophetical Books.

Field, ii. p. 428f. Cor-
nill’s €

Hesychian (Cornill,
Ceriani): cp. Klos-
termann, p. 1of.

Originally belonged
to same codex as
Vat. gr. 1153: see
Klostermann, p. II.
Cp. notes on 97, 238

Klostermann, p. 11 ἢ.

Lucianic (Field).

Cornill’s o

Lucianic (Field)

Lucianic (Field), Cor-
nill’s 7. Kloster-
mann, pp. II, 14

Hesychius, Cornill’s x

δ8.

105

. Prophets (x1)

. Prophets (xi

...Prophets (xiii)

i)

XV
...Prophets (x—xi)

he oh εὖ.

ek.,

Dodecapr.(?1x)

isa.y fers’ hz

. Prophets (? ix)

ek.,

Dan. (LXX.)

(? xi)

. Daniel (xi)=
ἘΠ 5 Ἐν 61: aoe

Han., car. ¢

. Prophets,

(xi)

ἐς ΤΡ UKIV

COMM.

Mops.

ξεν Jers Ez

Dan.

7. Dodecapr., I

cat. (x)
...Fragments

Prophets,

(xill—xiv)

239
cc.
X1)

cat.

. Dodecaproph.,
Theod.

ek.,
Sa.,

of

Florence, Laur. x. 8

Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr.
10

Oxford, New Coll.

...Ezek.,Dodecapr. Venice, St Mark’s, Gr.

5
Munich, Gr. 372 (for-
merly at Augsburg)
Rome, Barber. v. 45

Rome, Chigi 2

Rome, Chigi 3

Florence, Laur. v. 9

Rome, Vat. Ottob. Gr.
452
London, B. M. Reg.

1 19:02
Vienna, Th. Gr. 163

Copenhagen

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153

London, B. M. Bur-
ney

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

Lucianic (Field).
Cornill’s 6

On the text of Daniel
inthis MS.see Klos-
termann, p. 12

Lucianic (Field).
Field, 1. 9a
Burkitt, Zycontus,
p- ον} Kloster-
mann, p. 51

Hesychian. Cornill’s

Field, ii. p. 939. Wal-
ton, vi. 131 f.; Klos-
termann, p. 50

Hesychian. Cornill’s
B. For the relation
of 87 to 91 and 96
see Faulhaber Dze
Propheten - catenen
(Freiburg, 1899)

87 in Field (11. p. 766).
O.T. in Greek (iii.
p. xul.). Cf. Klos-
termann, p. 31

Lucianic (Field); in
Ezekiel, Hesychian
acc. to ."Cormitee
Cornill’s A

Hesychian (Cornill).
Cornill’s p. See
note on 87

Lucianic (Field)

Lucianic (Cornill)

See note on 87

See note on 33

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

107...1sa., Jer., Ezek.,
Dan., Minor
Prophets ἰἴο
Micah (xv)
109... saiah,cat. = 302
114. Dodecaproph.,
comm. Theod.
Mops...
122...Prophets (xv)
131...Prophets (? xii)
147...Dan. (imperf.),
Dodecaproph.
148. Daniel (xii)
153. Prophets (exc.
Zech.), comm.
(x)
185... Dodecaproph.
(xi)
198. Prophets (im-
perf.) (ix)
228...Prophets (xiii)
229. Jer., Dan., comme.
(xiv)
230. Daniel (xiii)
231. Jer. with Baruch

232.
233.
234.
53.
238.
239.
240.

301.

302

ἄς. (xi)

Daniel (xii)

Prophets (xiil)
Susanna
Susanna
Ezekiel, caz. (x)

Prophets
1046) = 89
Dodecapr.,
(A.D. 1286)
Isaiah (ix)
...[saiah, caz.( xili)
— 10g

(A.D.

cat.

Ferrara, Gr. 187

Evora, Carthus. 2

Venice, St Mark’s,

Gr. 6
Vienna, Th. Gr. 23
Oxford, Bodl. Laud.
30
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2025
Rome, Vat. Gr. 273

Vienna, Th. Gr. 18

Paris, Nat. Gr. 14
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1764

Rome, Vat. Gr. 673

Rome, Vat. Gr. 1641
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1670

Rome, Vat. Gr. 2000
Rome, Vat. Gr. 2067
Moscow, Syn. 341

Rome, Vat. Gr. 2048
Rome, Vat. Gr. 1153

Florence, Laur. vi. 22

Vienna, Th. Gr. 158

167

Lucianic (cf. Field, ii.
Ρ- 907)

Lucianic (Cornill)

Lucianic (Cornill)

=Ev. 33. Burkitt,
Tyconius, p. cviii

Hesychian (Cornill,
but cf. Kloster-
mann, p. 13f. Cor-
nill’s ¢)

From Grotta Ferrata.
Lucianic,Cornill’s «.
Cp. Klostermann,
Ρ. 14

A Basilian MS., cp.
Klostermann, p. 15

Lucianic (Field)

Hesychian (Cornill).
Cornill’s ¢s. See
notes on 33, 97

168 Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

303. Isaiah, comm. Vienna, Th. Gr. 100
Cyril.
304. Isaiah i.—xxv. Florence, Laur. iv. 2
comm. Basil.
(xi)
305. Isaiah (imperf.), Copenhagen, Reg.
cat.
306. Isa., Ezek. (xi) Paris, Nat. Gr. 16
307. Isaiah, comm. Rome, Vat. Gr. 430
Basil. (xi)
308. Isaiah, comm. Rome, Vat. Gr. 1509 Lucianic (Field)
Basil. and
That. (xiii)
309. Isaiah, ca¢. (x) Rome, Vat. Gr. 755 Cf. Klostermann, p.
II
310. Dodecapr.,schol. Moscow, Syn. 209

(x1)
311...Prophets (xi)=

234
...Prophets . (ix, Jerusalem, H. Sepul-
med.) chre 2

III. LEcTIONARIES.

From the second century the Greek-speaking Churches,
following the example of the Hellenistic Synagogue, read the
Greek Old Testament in their public assemblies.

Justin, Afol. i. 67 τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται.
Const. ap. ii. 57 μέσος δὲ ὁ ἀναγνώστης ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ τινος ἑστὼς
ἀναγινωσκέτω τὰ Μωσέως καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυή, τὰ τῶν Κριτῶν καὶ
τῶν Βασιλειῶν «.t.r. bid. viii. 5 μετὰ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοῦ νόμου καὶ
τῶν προφητῶν. Chrys. 22: Rom. xxiv. 3 ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθών,
εἰπὲ τίς προφήτης, τίς ἀπόστολος σήμερον διελέχθη.

At a later time the ἀναγνώσεις or ἀναγνώσματα were copied
consecutively for ecclesiastical use. ‘The lectionaries or frag-
ments of lectionaries which survive, although frequently written
in large and showy uncials’, are rarely earlier than the tenth or
eleventh century; but a thorough investigation of their con-
tents would doubtless be of interest, not only from a liturgical

1 Specimens are given by H. Omont, Facsimilés des plus anciens MSS.
Grecs (Paris, 1892), nos. xx.—-xxil.

vm i _—-

Manuscripts of the ls 169

point of view, but bet the light cea it would ἐπεδῷ on the
ecclesiastical distribution of various types of text. Little has
been done as yet in this direction, and our information, such as
it is, relates chiefly to the N.T.

See Matthaei, V. 7. Gv, ad fin. vol. i.; Neale, Holy Eastern
Church, General Intr., p. 369 ff.; Burgon, Last twelve verses of
SZ lark, p: 191 ἢ ἢ Scudamore, art. Lectionary, D.C. A. 1155
Nitzsch, art. Lectionarium, Herzog-Plitt, νὴ]. ; Gregory, prolege.
i. p. 161 ff., 687 ff.; Scrivener- Miller, i. p. 74 ff. : E. Nestle, Urtext,
p. 76.

The following list of MSS." containing lections from the
Old Testament has been drawn up from materials previously
supplied by Dr E. Nestle. It will be seen that with few excep-
tions they are limited to those which are bound up with N.T.
lections and have been catalogued under the head of N.T.

lectionaries by Dr C. F. Gregory and Scrivener- Miller.

Hondon, Sion College; Arc. 1, 1 (vi or vii)» Gr. ‘p. 720 (234, Scr. 227)

Ἄ B. Μ. Add. 11841 (Ὁ x1) Grp 753) (79; SCI. 7'5)
a B. M. Add. 18212 (xi) aie 7 15 0101. Crs 208)
a B. M. Add. 22744 (xii1) Grr p. -731 (324) ocr. 272)
9 Burdett-Coutts, ill. 42 (xiv) Gr. p,730 (315; Scr 259)
τι Burdett-Coutts, iil. 44 (xv) Gr. p. 749 (476, Scr. 290)
" Burdett-Coutts, ii. 46 (xiil) Gr. p. 734 (84)
Burdett-Coutts, ili. 53 (xv) GED. το (2206. 50 240)
Oxford, Christ Church, Wake I4 (x11) Gis pr 71 7-( 207. 0crn 2 IA)
3... warist Church, ‘Wake 15(A.D.1068) Gr. p. 717 (208, Scr. 215)

Cambridge, Univ. Libr. Add. 1879 (? xi) (Gen. xi. 4—9, Prov. xiii.
19—xiv. 6, Sir. xxxvii.
13—-xXxvVlll. 6): a frag-
ment purchased from
the executors of Tisch-

endorf
a Christs College, F-1..8 (xi).* Grp. 714 {(πὃ5: Scr. 222
ΞΡ WH. 59
Ashburnham, 205 (x1i) Gr. p. 720 (237, Scr. 237-8)
Paris, Nat. Gr. 308 (xil1) Gr ps 779 (24)
pee ats (τί: 243 (A.D. 1133) Omont, JZS'S. Grécs datés,
no. xlvi.

ΤᾺ few lectionaries have already been mentioned among the H.P. MSS.
(37, 61, 132).

170

Paris, Nat. suppl. Gr. 32 (xiii)
Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 59 (xii)
» Wat. Gr. 168 (xiii or xiv)
Vat) Gr 2082 (xv)
" / arb. τὸ (xiv)
Grotta Ferrata, A’ δ΄ 2 (x)
᾿ A’ & 4 (xlii)
4 A’ B’ 22 (xviii)
Venice, St Mark’s, i. 42 (xii)

Tréves, Bibl. Cath. 143 F (x or xi)

Athens, Nat. 86 (xiii)

Salonica, Ἑλληνικοῦ γυμνασίου 16’ (xv or

xvi)
Cairo, Patr. Alex. 927 (xv)
Sinai, 748 (xv or xvi)
» 943 (A.D. 1697)
St Saba, in tower, 16 (xii)
Jerusalem, H. Sepulchre (xiii)

LITERATURE (on the general subject of this chapter). Stroth,
in Eichhorn’s Repertortum (vi., viil., x1.); the prolegomena to
Grabe, Holmes and Parsons, Tischendorf, and Zhe Old Testa-
ment in Greek; the prefaces to Lagarde’s Geneszs graece, Libr.
V. T. Canon., p. 1., Psalterit specimen; Kenyon, Our Bible and
the Ancient MSS.; Madan, Summary, p. 615 ff. (Holmes MSS.,

Gr.

Gr.
Gr.

ao)

BoIDDD BVDRUUDUUDUDT

Manuscripts of the Septuagint.

704 (84)

«757: ( 5735 ake
786 (188, Scr.

756 (556, Scr.

780 (40)

748 (473, Scr.
748 (475, Scr.
751 (506, Scr.
724 (268, Scr.
- 713 (179)
- 745 (443)

- 771 (837)
. 776 (759, Scr.
- 775 (900)
- 775 (908)
. 770 (829, Ser.

Harris, p. 13

_A.D. 1789—1805); Nestle, Urtext, p. 71 ff.

The lists of MSS. given in this chapter must be regarded as
tentative and incomplete. The student may supplement them
to some extent by referring to recently published catalogues of
MS. libraries, especially the following: V. Gardthausen, Catalogus
codd. Graecorum Stnatticorum (Oxford, 1886); Papadopulos
Kerameus, Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη 1.—iv. (St Petersburg, 1891
—1899); Sp. P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek MSS. on
Mount Athos (Cambridge, vol. i., 1895; vol. 11. in type, but not
He may also consult with advantage J. B.
Pitra, Analecta sacra, 111. (1883), p. 551 ff.; P. Batiffol, in Bulletin
critique, 1888, p. 112 ff.; H. A. Redpath, in Academy, Oct. 22,

yet published).

1893; E. Klostermann’s Analecta zur Septuaginta (1895).

POSTSCRIPT.

395)
116)

387)
323)
325)

358)
173)

140)

364)

The first part of the Amherst Papyri, edited by Messrs Grenfell and Hunt, which
has just appeared (October, 1900), makes the following additions to the store of unused

uncial fragments enumerated in pp. 146—8:

(19) A papyrus leaf containing, with other Biblical matter, Gen. i. r—5 (LXX. and
Aquila). The writing appears to be of the time of Constantine.
(20) A leaf of a papyrus book, containing Ps. ν. 6—12, Vv aa
(21) Fragment of a vellum leaf belonging to a Psalter, containing parts of Pss. lviii.,

lix., ina hand “‘ dating apparently from about the fifth century.”

Cent. v. or vi.

(22) Fragments of Pss. cviii., cxviii., cxxxv., cxxxviii.—cxl., from the leaves of a

papyrus book written perhaps in cent. vii.

(23) Fragment of a leaf of a papyrus book, containing Jobi. 2rf., ii. 3. About cent. vii.

τ
ι

CHAPTER Vit

PRINTED TEXTS OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

THE printed texts of the Septuagint fall naturally into two
classes, viz. (1) those which contain or were intended to exhibit
the whole of the Greek Old Testament; (2) those which are
limited to a single book or to a group of books.

I. COMPLETE EDITIONS.

1. The first printed text of the whole Septuagint is that
which forms the third column in the Old Testament of the
great Complutensian Polyglott. This great Bible was printed
at Alcala (Complutum) in Spain under the auspices of Francisco
Ximenes de Cisneros, Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo. Ximenes,
who, in addition to his ecclesiastical offices, was Regent of
Castile, began this undertaking in 1502 in honour of the birth
of Charles V. (1500—1558), and lived to see the whole of the
sheets pass through the press. He died Nov. 8, 1517, and the
fourth volume, which completes the Old Testament and was
the last to be printed, bears the date July 10, 1517. But the
publication of the Polyglott was delayed for more than four
years: the papal sanction attached to the N.T. volume is dated
May 22, 1520, and the copy which was intended for the Pope
seems not to have found its way into the Vatican Library until
Dec. 5, 1521. The title of the complete work (6 vols. folio)
is as follows: ‘Biblia sacra Polyglotta complectentia V.T.

172 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

Hebraico Graeco et Latino idiomate, N.T. Graecum et Lati-
num, et vocabularium Hebraicum et Chaldaicum V.T. cum
grammatica Hebraica necnon Dictionario Graeco. Studio
opera et impensis Cardinalis Fr. Ximenes de Cisneros. In-
dustria Arnoldi Gulielmi de Brocario artis impressorie magistri.
Compluti, 1514/—15,—17].”

The O.T. volumes of the Complutensian Bible contain in.
three columns (1) the Hebrew text with the Targum of Onkelos,
(2) the Latin Vulgate, (3) the Septuagint, with an interlinear
Latin version—an order which is explained by the editors as
intended to give the place of honour to the authorised version
of the Western Church’. The prejudice which their words
reveal does not augur well for the character of the Complu-
tensian Lxx. Nevertheless we have the assurance of Ximenes
that the greatest care was taken in the selection of the MSS.
on which his texts were based’. Of his own MSS. few remain,
and among those which are preserved at Madrid there are
only two which contain portions of the Greek Old Testament
(Judges—Macc., and a Psalter). But he speaks of Greek
MSS. of both Testaments which had been sent to him by the
Pope from the Vatican Library’, and it has been shewn that
at least two MSS. now in that Library (cod. Vat. gr. 330 = H.P.
108, and cod. Vat. gr. 346=H.P. 248) were used in the con-
struction of the Complutensian text of the Lxx.* There is

1 Their words are: ‘‘mediam autem inter has Latinam B. Hieronymi
translationem velut inter Synagogam et orientalem ecclesiam posuimus,
tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Iesum, hoc est
Romanam sive Latinam ecclesiam, collocantes.”

* In the dedication to Leo X. he says: ‘‘testari possumus...maximi
laboris nostri partum in eo praecipue fuisse versatum ut...castigatissima
omni ex parte vetustissimaque exemplaria pro archetypis haberemus.”

3 “Ex ista apostolica bibliotheca antiquissimos tum V. tum N. Testa-
menti codices perquam humane ad nos misisti.”’

4 See Vercellone, in V. et N.7. ed. Mai, i. p. v. n.; Var. lectt. ii. p.
430; Dissertaziont Accademiche, 1864, p. 407 ff.; Tregelles, 4% account of the
printed text of the Greek N.T, (London, 1854), p- 2 ff.; Delitzsch, Studien
sur LEntstehungsgeschichte der Polyglotten Bibel des Cardinals Ximenes

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 173

reason to suppose that a Venice MS. (S. Marc. 5 = H.P. 68)
was also employed; a copy of this MS. still exists at Madrid.

The editors of the Complutensian Polygott were the
Spaniard Antonio de Nebrija, Professor of Rhetoric at Alcala,
and his pupil Ferdinando Niinez de Guzman (Pincianus) ; Diego
Lopez de Zufhiga (Stunica); Juan de Vergara, Professor of
Philosophy at Alcala; a Greek from Crete, by name Demetrius;
and three converts from Judaism, to whom the Hebrew text
and the Targum were entrusted. The editing of the Greek
LXx. text seems to have been left chiefly in the hands of
Pincianus, Stunica and Demetrius.

The Complutensian text is followed on the whole in the
Septuagint columns of the four great Polyglotts edited by Arias
Montanus, Antwerp, 1569—72; Vatablus, Geneva, 1586—7, 1599,
1616 ; D. Wolder, Hamburg, 1596; Michael Le Jay, Paris, 1645.

2. In February 153%, after the printing of the Complu-
tensian Polyglott but before its publication, Andreas Asolanus!,
father-in-law of the elder Aldus, issued from the Aldine press
a complete edition of the Greek Bible bearing the title: Πάντα
τὰ κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν καλούμενα βιβλία, θείας δηλαδὴ γραφῆς παλαιᾶς τε
καὶ νέας. Sacrae scripturae veteris novaeque omnia. Colophon:
Venetiis in aedib[us] Aldi et Andreae soceri. mdxviii., mense
Februario.

Like Ximenes, Andreas made it his business to examine the
best MSS. within his reach. In the dedication he writes:
‘“‘ego multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis biblia (ut vulgo
appellant) graece cuncta descripsi.’”’ His words, however, do
not suggest an extended search for MSS., such as was instituted
by the Spanish Cardinal; and it is probable enough that he
was content to use Bessarion’s collection of codices, which is
still preserved in St Mark’s Library at Venice*. Traces have
(Leipzig, 1871); Lagarde, 2107. V. T. can.i., Ὁ. iii.; E. Nestle, Septuagin-
tastudien, i., pp. 2, 133; E. Klostermann, Anacecta, p. 15 f.

1 On the orthography see Nestle, Septwagintastudien, ii., p. 11, note ὦ.
> Cf. Lagarde, Genesis graece, p. 6; Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 79; Nestle,

174 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

been found in his text of three at least of those MSS. (cod. 11 =
HP: δον cod. iii = H:P. αι gi 08, veo HP: 168).
The Aldine text of the LXxX. was followed on the whole in
the editions of (1) Joh. Lonicerus, Strassburg, 1526—8 ; (2)? with
a preface by Philip Melanchthon, Basle, 1545; (3) H. Guntius,
Basle, 1550, 1582; (4) Draconites, in Azb/ia Pentapla, Wittenburg
1562—5; (5) Francis du Jon (Fr. Junius) or(?) Fr. Sylburg,
Frankfort, 1597 ; (6) Nic. Glycas, Venice, 1687.

3. In 1587 a third great edition of the Greek Old Testa-
ment was published at Rome under the auspices of Sixtus V.
(editio Sixtina, Romana). It bears the title: H ΠΑΛΑΙᾺ AIA@HKH |
KATA TOYS EBAOMHKONTA | AI AY@ENTIAS | ZYSTOY Ε΄ AKPOY APXIE-
PEQS | EKAO@EISA | VETVS TESTAMENTVM | IVXTA SEPTVAGINTA |
EX AVCTORITATE | SIXTI V. PONT. MAX. | EDITVM | ROMAE|
EX TYPOGRAPHIA FRANCISCI ZANETTI. M.D.LXXXVI(I)* | CVM
PRIVILEGIO GEORGIO FERRARIO CONCESSO.

The volume consists of 783 pages of text, followed by two
of addenda and corrigenda, and preceded by three (un-
numbered) leaves which contain (1) a dedicatory letter addressed
to Sixtus V. by Cardinal Antonio Carafa, (2) a preface to the
reader*, and (3) the papal authorisation of the book. ‘These
documents are so important for the history of the printed text
that they must be given in full.

(1) SIxTO QUINTO PONTIF. MAX. ANTONIUS CARAFA
CARDINALIS SANCTAE SEDIS APOSTOLICAE BIBLIOTHECARIUS

Annus agitur iam fere octavus ex quo Sanctitas vestra pro
singulari suo de sacris litteris benemerendi studio auctor fuit
beatae memoriae Gregorio XIII. Pont. Max. ut sacrosancta Sep-

Urtext, p. 65. On the source of the Psalms in this edition see Nestle,
Septuagintastudien, 111., Ὁ. 32.

1 The second i has been added in many copies with the pen. The
impression was worked off in 1586, but the work was not published until
May 1587.

2 «Elle n’est point signée, mais on sait qu’elle fut redigée par Fulvio
Orsini. Elle est d’ailleurs trés inférieure a la lettre de Carafa.”’ (P. Batiffol,
La Vaticane de Paul 777. ἃ Paul V., p. 89).

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 175

tuaginta Interpretum Biblia, quibus Ecclesia tum Graeca tum
Latina iam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus usa est, ad fidem
probatissimorum codicum emendarentur. Quod enim Sanctitas V.
pro accurata sua in perlegendis divinis scripturis diligentia anim-
advertisset, infinitos pene locos ex 115 non eodem modo ab
antiquis sacris scriptoribus afferri quo in vulgatis Bibliorum
Graecis editionibus circumferrentur, existimassetque non aliunde
eam lectionum varietatem quam e multiplici eaque confusaveterum
interpretatione fluxisse; rectissime censuit ad optimae notae
exemplaria provocandum esse, ex quibus, quoad fieri posset, ea
quae vera et sincera esset Septuaginta Interpretum scriptura
eliceretur. Ex quo fit ut vestram nom solum pietatem sed etiam
sapientiam magnopere admirer; cum videam S. V. de Graecis
Bibliis expoliendis idem multos post annos in mentem venisse
quod sanctos illos Patres Tridenti congregatos auctoritate ac
reverentia ductos verae ac purae Septuaginta interpretationis
olim cogitasse cognovi ex actis eius Concilii nondum pervulgatis.
Huius autem expolitionis constituendae munus cum mihi deman-
datum esset a Gregorio XIII., cuius cogitationes eo maxime
spectabant ut Christiana Religio quam latissime propagaretur,
operam dedi ut in celebrioribus Italiae bibliothecis optima quae-
que exemplaria perquirerentur atque ex lis lectionum varietates
descriptae ad me mitterentur!. Quibus sane doctorum hominum
quos ad id delegeram industria et iudicio clarae memoriae
Gulielmi Cardinalis Sirleti (quem propter excellentem doc-
trinam et multiplicem linguarum peritiam in locis obscurioribus
mihi consulendum proposueram) persaepe examinatis et cum
vestro Vaticanae bibliothecae (cui me benignitas vestra nuper
praefecit) exemplari diligenter collatis ; intelleximus cum ex ipsa
collatione tum e sacrorum veterum scriptorum consensione,
Vaticanum codicem non solum vetustate verum etiam bonitate
caeteris anteire; quodque caput est, ad ipsam quam quaere-
bamus Septuaginta interpretationem, si non toto libro, maiori
certe ex parte, quam proxime accedere. Quod mihi cum multis
aliis argumentis constaret, vel ipso etiam libri titulo, qui est κατὰ
τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα, curavi de consilio et sententia eorum quos supra
nominavi, huius libri editionem ad Vaticanum exemplar emen-
dandam ; vel potius exemplar ipsum, quod eius valde probaretur
auctoritas, de verbo ad verbum repraesentandum, accurate prius
sicubi opus fuit recognitum et notationibus etiam auctum. Factum
est autem providentia sane divina, ut quod Sanctitate vestra
suadente sui Cardinalatus tempore inchoatum est, id variis de
causis aliquoties intermissum per ipsa fere initia Pontificatus sui

1 On the genesis of the Sixtine edition the curious reader may consult
Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i., 11., where the particulars are collected with
the utmost care and fulness.

176 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

fuerit absolutum; scilicet ut hoc praeclarum opus, vestro Sanctis-
simo nomini dicatum, quasi monumentum quoddam perpetuum
esset futurum apud omnes bonos et vestrae erga Rempublicam |
Christianam voluntatis et meae erga Sanctitatem vestram obser-
vantiae. .

(2) PRAEFATIO AD LECTOREM

Qui sunt in sacrosanctis scripturis accuratius versati, fatentur
omnes Graecam Septuaginta Interpretum editionem longe 4115
omnibus quibus Graeci usi sunt et antiquiorem esse et probatiorem.
Constat enim eos Interpretes, natione quidem Iudaeos, doctos
vero Graece, trecentis uno plus annis ante Christi adventum, cum
in Aegypto regnaret Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, Spiritu sancto
plenos sacra Biblia interpretatos esse, eamque interpretationem a
primis Ecclesiae nascentis temporibus tum publice in Ecclesiis
ad legendum propositam fuisse, tum privatim receptam et ex-
planatam ab Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus qui vixerunt ante B.
Hieronymum, Latinae vulgatae editionis auctorem. Nam Aquila
quidem Sinopensis, qui secundus post Septuaginta eosdem libros
ex Hebraeo in Graecum convertit et multo post tempore sub
Hadriano principe floruit, et eius interpretatio, (quod ea quae de
Christo in scripturis praedicta fuerant, ut a ludaeis gratiam iniret
aliter quam Septuaginta vertendo, subdola obscuritate involverit)
iamdiu est cum a recte sentientibus, licet in hexaplis haberetur,
aliquibus locis non est probata. Hunc vero qui subsequuti sunt,
Symmachus et Theodotio, alter Samaritanus sub L. Vero, alter
Ephesius sub Imp. Commodo, uterque (quamvis et ipsi in
hexaplis circumferrentur) parum fidus interpres habitus est:
Symmachus, quod Samaritanis offensus, ut placeret Iudaeis,
non unum sanctae scripturae locum perturbato sensu corruperit ;
Theodotio, quod Marcionis haeretici sectator nonnullis locis
perverterit potius quam converterit sacros libros. Fuerunt
praeter has apud Graecos aliae duae editiones incertae aucto-
ritatis : altera Antonio Caracalla Imp. apud Hierichuntem, altera
apud Nicopolim sub Alexandro Severo in doliis repertae. quae
quod in octaplis inter Graecas editiones quintum et sextum
locum |obtinerent, quintae et sextae editionis nomen retinu-
erunt. Sed nec hae satis fidae interpretationes habitae sunt.
His additur alia quaedam editio sancti Luciani martyris, qui
vixit sub Diocletiano et Maximiano Impp., valde illa quidem
probata, sed quae cum Septuaginta Interpretibus comparari
nullo modo possit, vel ipsis etiam Graecis scriptoribus testan-
tibus et Niceta confirmante his plane verbis in commentario
Psalmorum : ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἔκδοσιν σεβαζόμενοι, τῇ
τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα προσκείμεθα μάλιστα, ὅτι διῃρημένως τὴν τῆς

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 177

διαλέκτου μεταβολὴν ποιησάμενοι μίαν ἐν ἑκάστοις ἔννοιαν καὶ λέξιν
ἀποδεδώκασιν.

Adeo Septuaginta Interpretum editio magni nominis apud
omnes fuit; nimirum quae instinctu quodam divinitatis elabo-
rata bono generis humani prodierit in lucem. Sed haec etiam
ipsa, quod in hexaplis ita primum ab Origene collocata
fuerit ut eius e regione aliae editiones quo inter se comparari
commodius possent ad legendum propositae essent, deinde
vero varietates tantum ex iis ad illam sub obelis et asteriscis
notari essent coeptae, factum est ut vetustate notis obliteratis
insincera nimis et valde sui dissimilis ad nos pervenerit : quippe
quae insertis ubique aliorum interpretationibus, aliquibus autem
locis duplici atque etiam triplici eiusdem sententiae interpre-
tatione intrusa, male praeterea a librariis accepta, suum ob id
nitorem integritatemque amiserit. Hinc illae lectionum penitus
inter se dissidentes varietates et, quod doctissimorum hominum
ingenia mentesque diu torsit, ipsae exemplarium non solum inter
se sed a veteribus etiam scriptoribus dissensiones. Quod malum
primo a multis ignoratum, ab aliis postea neglectum, quotidie
longius serpens, principem librum, et a quo tota lex divina et
Christiana pendent instituta, non levibus maculis inquinavit.
Quo nomine dici non potest quantum omnes boni debeant
Sixto V. Pont. Max. Is enim quod in sacris litteris, unde
sanctissimam hausit doctrinam, aetatem fere totam contriverit,
quodque in hoc libro cum veterum scriptis conferendo singu-
larem quandam diligentiam adhibuerit, vidit primus qua ratione
huic malo medendum esset; nec vidit solum, sed auctoritate
etiam sua effecit ut summus Pontifex Gregorius XIII. Graeca
Septuaginta Interpretum Biblia, adhibita diligenti castigatione,
in pristinum splendorem restituenda curaret. Quam rem exe-
quendam cum ille demandasset Antonio Carafae Cardinali, viro
veteris sanctitatis et omnium honestarum artium cultori, nulla
is interposita mora delectum habuit doctissimorum hominum
qui domi suae statis diebus exemplaria manuscripta, quae
permulta undique conquisierat, conferrent et ex lis optimas
quasque lectiones elicerent; quibus deinde cum codice Vati-
canae bibliothecae saepe ac diligenter comparatis intellectum
est, eum codicem omnium qui extant longe optimum esse, ac
operae pretium fore si ad eius fidem nova haec editio para-
retur.

Sed emendationis consilio iam explicato, ipsa quoque ratio
quae in emendando adhibita est nunc erit aperienda, in primis-
que Vaticanus liber describendus, ad cuius praescriptum haec
editio expolita est. Codex is, quantum ex forma characterum
coniici potest, cum sit maioribus litteris quas vere antiquas
vocant exaratus, ante millesimum ducentesimum annum, hoc est
ante tempora B. Hieronymi et non infra, scriptus videtur. Ex

Ss. S. ΤᾺ

178 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

omnibus autem libris qui in manibus fuerunt unus hic prae alliis,
quia ex editione Septuaginta si non toto libro certe maiorem
partem constare visus est, mirum in modum institutam emenda-
tionem adiuvit; post eum vero alii duo qui ad eius vetustatem
proximi quidem sed longo proximi intervallo accedunt, unus
Venetus ex bibliotheca Bessarionis Cardinalis, et is quoque
grandioribus litteris scriptus; alter qui ex Magna Graecia ad-
vectus nunc est Carafae Cardinalis: qui liber cum Vaticano
codice ita in omnibus consentit ut credi possit ex eodem arche-
typo descriptus esse. Praeter hos magno etiam usui fuerunt
libri ex Medicea bibliotheca Florentiae collati, qui Vaticanas
lectiones multis locis aut confirmarunt aut illustrarunt. Sed
libri Vaticani bonitas non tam ex horum codicum miro consensus
perspecta est, quam ex iis locis qui partim adducuntur partim |
explicantur ab antiquis sacris scriptoribus; qui fere nusquam
huius exemplaris lectiones non exhibent ac reponunt, nisi ubi
aliorum Interpretum locum aliquem afferunt, non Septuaginta.
quorum editio cum esset nova emendatione perpolienda, recte
ad huius libri normam, qui longe omnium antiquissimus, solus
iuxta Septuaginta inscribitur, perpolita est ; vel potius rectissime
liber ipse ad litteram, quoad fierl potuit per antiquam ortho-
graphiam aut per librarii lapsus, est expressus. Nam vetus illa
et iam obsoleta eius aetatis scriptura aliquibus locis repraesentata
non est; cum tamen in aliis omnibus, nisi ubi manifestus ap-
parebat librarii lapsus, ne latum quidem unguem, ut aiunt, ab
huius libri auctoritate discessum sit, ne in iis quidem quae 51
minus mendo, certe suspicione mendi videbantur non carere.
satius enim visum est locos vel aliquo modo suspectos (nec
enim fieri potest ut in quantumvis expurgato exemplari non
aliqua supersit macula) quemadmodum habentur in archetypo
relinqui quam eos ex alicuius ingenio aut coniectura emendari :
quod multa quae primo vel mendosa vel mutilata in hoc codice
videbantur, ea postea cum aliis libris collata vera et sincera
reperirentur. Nam in libris Prophetarum, qui maxime in hoc
exemplari (uno excepto Daniele) puram Septuaginta editionem
resipiunt, mirum quam multa non habeantur; quae tamen
recte abesse et eorum Interpretum non esse, intellectum est
tum ex commentariis veterum scriptorum Graecis et Latinis,
tum ex libris manuscriptis in quibus illa addita sunt sub aste-
riscis.

Atque haec ratio in notationibus quoque servata est, in
quibus cum multa sint ex commentariis Graecis petita quae in
codicibus manuscriptis partim mutilata partim varie scripta
aliquibus locis circumferuntur, ea non aliter atque in arche-
typis exemplaribus reperiuntur descripta sunt, quo uniuscu-
iusque arbitratu adiuvantibus libris restitui possint. Nec vero
illud omittendum, quod item pertinet ad notationes ; non omnia

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 179

in lis repraesentata esse quae aut ad confirmandas lectiones
Vaticanas e scriptoribus vulgatis, aut ad explenda quae in Sep-
tuaginta non habentur, ex aliorum editionibus afferri potuissent,
quod in communibus libris cum legantur, inde sibi unusquisque
nullo negotio ea parare possit. Quae vero in libris manuscriptis
reperta, vel ad indicandas antiquarum tum lectionum tum inter-
pretationum varietates (sub scholii illas nomine, quod ipsarum
incerta esset auctoritas, nonnunquam relatas) vel ad stabiliendam
scripturam Vaticanam et eius obscuriores locos illustrandos per-
tinere visa sunt, ea certe non sunt praetermissa.

Ordo autem librorum in Vaticano exemplari cum idem
fere sit cum eo qui apud Graecos circumfertur, a vulgatis
tamen editionibus variat in hoc quod primo habet duodecim
Prophetas et hos ipsos aliter dispositos; deinde reliquos quat-
tuor, quemadmodum vulgo editi sunt. Atque hunc ordinem
verum esse intelligimus ex eo quod illum agnoscunt et pro-
bant veteres Ecclesiastici scriptores. Et cum toto exemplari
nulla capitum divisio sit, (nam in nova editione consultum est
legentium commoditati) in libro tamen quattuor Prophetarum
distinctio quaedam apparet subobscura, illi paene similis quam
describit sanctus Dorotheus martyr, qui vixit sub Magno Con-
stantino.

Maccabaeorum libri absunt ab hoc exemplari, atque item
liber Genesis fere totus; nam longo aevo consumptis membranis
mutilatus est ab initio libri usque ad caput XLVII. et liber item
Psalmorum, qui a Psalmo CV. usque ad CXXXVIII. nimia
vetustate mancus est. Sed haec ex aliorum codicum collatione
emendata sunt.

Quod si aliqua videbuntur in hac editione, ut ait B. Hie-
ronymus, vel lacerata vel inversa, quod ea sub obelis et aste-
riscis ab Origene suppleta et distincta non sint; vel obscura
et perturbata, quod cum Latina vulgata non consentiant, et
in aliquibus aliis editionibus apertius et expressius habeantur ;
eris lector admonendus, non eo spectasse huius expolitionis
industriam ut haec editio ex permixtis eorum qui supra nominati
sunt interpretationibus (instar eius quam scribit B. Hieronymus
a Graecis κοινήν, a nostris appellatam Communem) concinnata,
Latinae vulgatae editioni, hoc est Hebraeo, ad verbum respondeat ;
sed ut ad eam quam Septuaginta Interpretes Spiritus sancti
auctoritatem sequuti ediderunt, quantum per veteres libros fieri
potest, quam proxime accedat. Quam nunc novis emendationibus
illustratam et aliorum Interpretum reliquiis quae supersunt auctam,
non parum profuturam ad Latinae vulgatae intelligentiam, dubi-
tabit nemo qui hanc cum illa accurate comparaverit.

Quae si doctis viris et pie sentientibus, ut aequum est, proba-
buntur, reliquum erit ut Sixto V. Pont. Max. huius boni auctori
gratias agant, et ab omnipotenti Deo publicis votis poscant,

12---2

180 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

optimum Principem nobis florentem quam diutissime servet.
qui cum omnes curas cogitationesque suas in amplificandam
ornandamque Ecclesiae dignitatem contulerit, dubitandum non
est quin Rep. Christiana optimis legibus et sanctissimis institutis
per eum reformata, religione ac pietate, revocatis antiquis ritibus,
in suum splendorem restituta, in hoc quoque publicam causam
sit adiuturus ut sacri veteres libri, hominum incuria vel improbi-
tate corrupti, pro sua eximia benignitate ab omni labe vindicati,
quam emendatissimi pervulgentur.

(3) SixTus Papa V.

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Cupientes, quantum in nobis
est, commissi nobis gregis saluti quacunque ratione ac via pro-
spicere, ad pastoralem nostram curam pertinere vehementer
arbitramur Sacrae Scripturae libros, quibus salutaris doctrina
continetur, ab omnibus maculis expurgatos integros purosque
pervulgari. Id nos in inferiori gradu constituti, quantum potui-
mus, studio et diligentia nostra praestitimus, et in hac altissima
specula a Deo collocati assidue mentis nostrae oculis spectare
non desistimus. Cum itaque superioribus annis piae recorda-
tionis Gregorius Papa XIII. praedecessor noster, nobis sugge-
rentibus, Graecum Vetus Testamentum iuxta Septuaginta Inter-
pretum editionem, qua ipsi etiam Apostoli nonnunquam usi
fuerunt, ad emendatissimorum codicum fidem expoliendum
mandaverit; eius rel cura dilecto filio nostro Antonio Sanctae
Romanae Ecclesiae Presbytero Cardinali Carafae, et ad id per
eum delectis eruditis aliquot viris demandata, et iam expolitio
huiusmodi, permultis exemplaribus ex diversis Italiae bibliothecis
et praecipue ex nostra Vaticana diligenter collatis matureque
examinatis, absoluta sit: Volumus et sancimus ad Dei gloriam
et Ecclesiae utilitatem, ut Vetus Graecum Testamentum iuxta
Septuaginta ita recognitum et expolitum ab omnibus recipiatur
ac retineatur, quo potissimum ad Latinae vulgatae editionis et
veterum Sanctorum Patrum intelligentiam utantur. Prohibentes
ne quis de hac nova Graeca editione audeat in posterum vel
addendo vel demendo quicquam immutare. Si quis autem
aliter fecerit quam hac nostra sanctione comprehensum est,
noverit se in Dei Omnipotentis beatorumque Apostolorum Petri
et Pauli indignationem incursurum.

Datum Romae apud Sanctum Marcum sub Anulo Piscatoris.
Die viii Octobris M.D.LXXXVI, Pontificatus nostri anno secundo.
Tho. Thom. Gualterutius.

The reader will not fail to note the intelligent appreciation
of the Lxx., and the wide outlook over the history of the Greek

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 181

versions which are implied by these documents’. They shew
that the Vatican had already learnt the true value of the
Alexandrian Old Testament and, as a consequence, had re-
solved to place in the hands of the scholars of Europe as pure
a text as could be obtained of the version which was used by
the ancient Church, and was now felt to be essential to a right
understanding of the Fathers and of the Latin Vulgate. The
inception of the work was due to Pope Sixtus himself, who
had suggested it to his predecessor Gregory XIII. in 1578;
but the execution was entrusted to Cardinal Antonio Carafa
and a little band of Roman scholars including Cardinal Sirleto,
Antonio Agelli, and Petrus Morinus. Search was made in the
libraries of Italy as well as in the Vatican for MSS. of the Lxx.,
but the result of these enquiries satisfied the editors of the
superiority of the great Vatican Codex (B =cod. Vat. gr. 1209)
over all other known codices, and it was accordingly taken as
the basis of the new edition. Use was made, however, of other
MSS., among which were a Venice MS. which has been identi-
fied with S. Marc. cod. gr.1 (H. P. 23, Lag. V); a MS. belong-
ing to Carafa, possibly cod. Vat. gr. 1252 (H. P. 63 + 129, cf.
Klostermann, p. 12f., and Batiffol, Bulletin critique, 15 Mars
1889), and certain Laurentian MSS. of which collations are
still preserved in the Vatican Library (Vat. gr. 1241, 1242,
1244; see Batiffol, Za Vaticane, p. 90f.). From these and
other sources the editors supplied the large lacunae of Cod. B’.
But they did not limit themselves to the filling up of gaps or
even to the correction of errors, as will appear from a
comparison of the Sixtine text with the photographic represen-
tation of the Vatican MS. The edition of 1587 is not an
exact reproduction of a single codex, even where the selected
MS. was available ; but it is based as a whole on a great uncial
1 Cf. Tregelles, Ax account of the printed text, &c., p. 185.

2 According to Nestle (Septwagintastudien, i. p. 9, ii. p. 12) Genesis i.
1—xlvi. 28 are supplied from cod. Chis. R. vi. 38 (H. P. 19, lag. 2).

182 Printed Texts of the ων

MS., and it is the first edition of the Lxx. which possesses this
character. Moreover, criticism has confirmed the judgement
of the Roman editors in regard to the selection of their basal
MS. It is a fortunate circumstance that the authority of the
Vatican was given before the end of the sixteenth century to a
text of the Lxx. which is approximately pure.

Besides the text the Roman edition contained considerable
materials for the criticism of the Greek Old Testament, collected
by the labours of Morinus, Agelli, and others. These include
readings and scholia from MSS. of the Lxx., renderings from
Aquila and the other non-Septuagintal Greek versions, and
a large assortment of patristic citations.

Editions based upon the Sixtine are very numerous. The
following list is abridged from Nestle’s Urtext (p. 65 ff.) :

. Jo. Morinus, Paris, 1628, 1641. 2. R. Daniel, London,
4to and 8vo, 1653; Cambridge, 1653. 3. B. Walton, London,
1657 (the third column of his Polyglott). 4. Cambridge, 1665
(with the Draefatio paraenetica of J. Pearson’, Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity, afterwards Bp of Chester). 5. J. Leusden,
Amsterdam, 1683. 6. Leipzig, 1697 (with prolegomena by
J. Frick). 7. L. Bos, Frankfort, 1709. 8. D. Mill, Amsterdam,
1725. 9. C. Reineccius, Leipzig, 1730. 10. Halle, 1759—62
(with a preface by J. G. Kirchner). 11. Holmes and Parsons,
Oxford, 1798—1827. 12. Oxford, 1817 (with introduction by
Ι: [G.}? Carpzow). 13. F. Valpy, London, 1819. 14. London,
1821, 26, 31, 51, 69, 78 (the LXx. column of Bagster’s Polyglott).
I5. Venice, 1822. τό. Glasgow and London, 1827, 31. 17. L.
Van Ess, Leipzig, 1824, 35, 55, 68, 79, 87 (prolegomena and epile-
gomena separately i in 1887). 18. London, 1837. 19. Didot, Paris,
£830, 40, 48, §55.76, 62: 20, (Oxtord, lots, 75. 20: te. Ε. von
Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1850, 56, 60, 69, 75, 80.

Of the above some are derived from the Sixtine indirectly,
whilst others present a Sixtine text more or less modified, or
accompanied by variants from other MSS.

4. The example of Rome was followed in the 18th century
by England, which had meanwhile acquired an uncial Bible

1 The praefatio was reprinted with Archd. Churton’s notes by Prof. W.
Selwyn (Cambridge, 1855).
* See Nestle, Septwagintastudien, ili., Ὁ. 32, note 2.

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 183

only less ancient, and in the view of some scholars textually
more important than the great Vatican MS. The variants of
Codex Alexandrinus had been given in Walton’s Polyglott under
the Sixtine text1, but the honour of producing an edition on the
basis of the English codex belongs to a Prussian scholar,
John Ernest Grabe, an adopted son of the University of Oxford.
This edition appeared ultimately in four folio volumes (1707—
20), but only the first and fourth had been published when
Grabe died (1712); the second and third were undertaken after
his decease by Francis Lee, M.D., and William Wigan, D.D.
respectively. Vol. i. (1707) contains the Octateuch, Vol. 11.
(1719) the Historical Books, Vol. i. (1720) the Prophets,
Vol. iv, (1709) the Poetical Books. The title to the first volume
runs: ‘“Septuaginta | interpretum | tomus I | continens Octa-
teuchum | quem | ex antiquissimo codice Alexandrino | accu-
rate descriptum | et ope aliorum exemplarium, ac priscorum
scriptorum | praesertim vero Hexaplaris editionis Origenianae |
emendatum atque suppletum | additis saepe asteriscorum et
obelorum signis | summa cura edidit | Joannes Ernestus Grabe
S.T.P. | Oxonti, e theatro Sheldoniano | ...MDccviI.”

This title sufficiently indicates the general principles upon
which this great undertaking was based. Like the Sixtine
edition, Grabe’s is in the main a presentation of the text
exhibited in a single uncial codex; like the Sixtine, but to a
greater extent, its text is in fact eclectic and mixed. On the
other hand the mixture in Grabe’s Alexandrian text is overt
and can be checked at every point. He deals with his codex
as Origen dealt with the κοινή, marking with an obelus the
words, clauses, or paragraphs in the MS. for which he found
no equivalent in the Massoretic Hebrew, and placing an aste-

1 Patrick Young had projected a complete edition of cod. A (Walton’s
Prolegomena, ed. Wrangham, ii. p. 124). His transcript of the MS. is still
preserved at the British Museum (Harl. 7522=Holmes 241; see above,

p. 152).

184 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

risk before such as he believed to have been derived from
Theodotion or some other non-Septuagintal source. If he
constantly adds to his MS. or relegates its readings to the
margin, such additions and substituted words are distinguished
from the text of cod. A by being printed in a smaller type.
So far as it professes to reproduce the text of the MS., his
edition is substantially accurate. The prolegomena by which
each volume is introduced are full and serviceable; and the
work as a whole, whatever may be thought of the method
adopted by the editors, is creditable to the Biblical scholarship
of the age.

Grabe’s text was reproduced by Breitinger (Zurich, 1730—2),
and Reineccius (in his Biblia sacra quadrilinguia, Leipzig,
1750—1); also in a Greek Bible issued at Moscow in 1821 under
the authority of the Holy Synod. A more important work based
upon this edition is the Septuagint published by the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge under the care of Dr Field
(Vetus Testamentum Graece tuxta LXX. interpretes. Recen-
stonem Grabianam ad fidem codicis Alexandrini aliorumgque
denuo recognovit...F. Field, Oxonii, 1859). But the purpose
which the Society had in view forbade a critical treatment of the
materials, and whilst the learned editor has removed many of the
imperfections of Grabe’s work, the text remains arbitrary and
mixed, and the arrangement is alien from that of all Lxx. MSS.
the non-canonical books being relegated to an appendix as
ἀπόκρυφα.

5. Each of the four great editions of the Septuagint already
described (the Complutensian, Aldine, Sixtine, and Grabian)
endeavoured to supply a text approximately representing either
a group of MSS., or a single uncial of high antiquity. No
attempt had been made as yet to offer an exact reproduction
of a codex, or to provide a full apparatus criticus, the purpose
of the editors in each case being practical rather than critical.
This want was met in some degree in certain of the secondary
editions; thus the Basle reprint of the Aldine text (1545)
gave a short list of variants and conjectural emendations; in
the London Polyglott the readings of Codex Alexandrinus

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 185

were printed underneath the Sixtine text, and those of Codex
Sarravianus were exhibited in the Septuagint of Lambert Bos.
But the first comprehensive effort in this direction was made by
Robert Holmes (1748—1805), Professor of Poetry at Oxford,
and Canon of Christ Church, and, from 1804, Dean of Win-
chester. The preparations for his great work were begun in
1788. An appeal was made to the liberality of public bodies
and private patrons of learning, and the task of collating MSS.
was committed to a large number of scholars at home and on
the continent, whose names are honourably mentioned in the
opening pages of the first volume. From 1789 to 1805 an
annual account was printed of the progress of the work", and
the Bodleian Library contains 164 volumes of MS. collations
(Holmes MSS. a.p. 1789—1805, nos. 16455—16617)* which
were deposited there during those seventeen years. In 1795 a
specimen of the forthcoming work was published together with
a transcript of the Vienna Genesis in a letter to the Bishop of
Durham (Shute Barrington). Genesis appeared separately in
1798, followed in the same year by the first volume bearing the
title: Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum varits lectionibus. Edidit
Robertus Holmes, $.T.P.,R.S.S., Aedis Christi Canonicus. Tomus
primus. Oxonti: ὁ typographeo Clarendoniano. MDCCXCVIII.
This volume, which contains the Pentateuch, with a preface
and appendix, was the only one which Holmes lived to complete.
He died Nov. 12, 1805, and two years later the editorship was
entrusted to James Parsons*, under whose care the remaining
volumes were issued (Vol. ii, Joshua—z Chronicles, 1810;
Vol. Π|., 2 Esdras—Canticles, 1823; Vol. iv., Prophets, 1827 ;
Vol. v., the non-canonical books, 1 Esdras—3 Maccabees, 1827).
At the end of Vol. v. there is a list of the Greek MSS. collated

CL Ce. O. X., April 1899, p. Loz. Ξ

2 Cf. Madan’s Summary catalogue of 77.8.5. in the Bodleian: Eighteenth
century collections, pp. 614—641.

3 On Holmes’ less distinguished coadjutor see Ch. Q. R. p. τος.

Parsons died in 1847 at the age of 85.

186 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

for the work. Three hundred and eleven are enumerated (i.—
xlll., 14311); a corrected estimate gives a total of 297 separate
codices, of which 20 are uncial. Besides the readings of this
large number of Greek MSS., the apparatus of Holmes and
Parsons exhibits the evidence of the Old Latin versions so far
as it had been collected by Sabatier, and of the Coptic (Mem-
phitic and Sahidic), Arabic, Slavonic, Armenian and Georgian
versions, obtained partly from MSS., partly from printed texts.
Use was also made of patristic citations and of the four great
editions of the Septuagint, the Sixtine supplying the text, while
the Aldine, Complutensian and Alexandrine (Grabian) are cited
in the notes. In addition to these, Holmes employed the
printed text of the catena of Nicephorus (Leipzig, 1772—3),
and J. F. Fischer’s edition of cod. Lips. 361 (Leipzig, 1767—8)’.

The great work of Holmes and Parsons has been severely
criticised by later scholars, especially by Hatch* and Lagarde’.
A vigorous defence of the Oxford editors will be found in a
recent article in the Church Quarterly Review (already quoted).
It appears to be certain that every effort was made by Holmes
to secure the services of the best scholars who were available
for the work of collation.

Among the collators of Greek MSS. employed by the Oxford
editors were Bandini (Florence), C. F. Matthai (Moscow), F. C.
Alter (Vienna), Schnurrer (Tiibingen), Moldenhawer (Copen-
hagen). “The Armenian Version was chiefly collated by Her-
mannus Breden-Kemp (1793) and F. C. Alter (1795—1804), the
latter also taking the Georgian..the Slavonic..Coptic..and
Bohemian Versions. The Arabic Versions were undertaken
by Paulus and Prof. Ford, and the Syriac quotations in the Hor-
reum uysteriorum of Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus.. by Dr Holmes”
(F. C. Madan, Summary catalogue, p. 640).

But in so vast an accumulation of the labours of many

workers it was impossible to maintain an uniform standard of
merit; nor are the methods adopted by Holmes and his con-

1 See above, p. 153. 2 Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 132.
8 Libr. V. ΤΟ Canon. p. t. p. Xv.

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 187

tinuator altogether such as would commend themselves at the
present day. The work is an almost unequalled monument
of industry and learning, and will perhaps never be superseded
as a storehouse of materials; but it left abundant room for
investigations conducted on other lines and among materials
which were not accessible to Holmes and his associates.

6. The next step was taken by A. F. C. von Tischendorf
(1815—1874), who in the midst of his researches in Eastern
libraries and his work upon the text of the New Testament
found leisure to project and carry through four editions (1850,
1856, 1860, 1869) a manual text of the Septuagint. Its plan
was simple, but suggestive. His text was a revised Sixtine ;
underneath it he placed an apparatus limited to the variants
of a few great uncials: ‘eam viam ingressus sum (he writes’)
ut textum per tria fere secula probatissimum repeterem, mutatis
tantummodo quibus mutatione maxime opus esset, addita vero
plena lectionis varietate ex tribus codicibus antiquissimis quos
fere solos utpote editos confidenter adhibere licebat.” The
three MSS. employed by Tischendorf in his first edition (1850)
were A (from Baber’s facsimile), C (from his own facsimile),
and FA, the portion of Cod. Sinaiticus which was published
in 1846; in the third and fourth editions he was able to make
further use of Cod. Sinaiticus, and to take into account Mai’s
edition of Cod. B.

Since Tischendorf’s death three more editions of his Septuagint
have appeared—a fifth in 1875, a sixth and a seventh in 1880 and
1887 respectively, the last two under the supervision of Dr
Eberhard Nestle. Nestle added a Supplementum editionum quae
Stxtinam sequuntur omntum in primis Tischendorfianarum, con-
sisting of a collation of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. with the
Sixtine text, the Vatican text being obtained from Vercellone and
Cozza’s facsimile, and the Sinaitic from Tischendorf’s edition of 8;
an appendix contained a collation of Daniel (LXx.) from Cozza’s

edition of the Chigi MS. The Swpplementum was reissued in
1887 with various enrichments, of which the most important

1 Prolegg. § viii.

188 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

was a collation of cod. A from the London photograph which
appeared in 1882—3. With these helps the reader of Tischen-
dorf’s Septuagint is able to correct and supplement the appara-
tus, and to compare the text with that of cod. B so far as it
could be ascertained before the publication of the photograph.

7. Another of the great Biblical scholars of the nineteenth
century, Paul de Lagarde, commenced an edition of the Greek
Old Testament, which was intended to be a definite step
towards the reconstruction of the text. Lagarde’s general
plan was announced in Symmiucta il. (1880), p. 137 ff., and in a
modified and simpler form by a pamphlet published two years
later (Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen tiberset-
sung des A.T., Gottingen, 1882). A beginning was made by
the appearance of the first half of the text of the Lucianic
recension (Librorum V.T. canonicorum pars prior Graece Pauli
de Lagarde studio et sumptibus edita, Gottingen, 1883). La-
garde’s untimely death in 1891 left this work incomplete, and
though his papers are preserved at Gottingen, it is understood
that no steps will be taken to carry out the scheme, at least on
the same lines. The published volume contains the Octateuch
and the Historical Books as far as Esther. Of the last named
book two texts are given, with an apparatus, but with this
exception the text stands alone, and the reader knows only
that it is an attempted reconstruction of Lucian, based upon
six MSS. which are denoted afhm pz (H. P. 108, 82, 19, 93,
118, 44). This is not the place to discuss Lagarde’s critical
principles, but it may be mentioned here that his attempt to
reconstruct the text of Lucian’s recension was but one of a
series of projected reconstructions through which he hoped
ultimately to arrive at a pure text of the Alexandrian version.
The conception was a magnificent one, worthy of the great
scholar who originated it; but it was beset with practical
difficulties, and there is reason to hope that the desired end
may be attained by means less complicated and more direct.

8. In the spring of 1883 the Syndics of the Cambridge

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 189

University Press issued a notice that they had undertaken
“tan edition of the Septuagint and Apocrypha with an ample
apparatus criticus intended to provide material for a critical
determination of the text,” in which it was “‘ proposed to give
the variations of all the Greek uncial MSS., of select Greek
cursive MSS., of the more important versions, and of the
quotations made by Philo and the earlier and more important
ecclesiastical writers.” As a preliminary step they announced
the preparation of ‘‘a portable text...taken from the Vatican
MS., where this MS. is not defective, with the variations of two
or three other early uncial MSS.” The suggestion was originally
due to Dr Scrivener, who submitted it to the Syndics of the
Press in the year 1875, but was ultimately prevented by many
preoccupations and failing health from carrying his project into
execution. After undergoing various modifications it was com-
mitted in 1883 to Dr Swete, instructed by a committee con-
sisting of Professors Westcott, Hort, Kirkpatrick, and Bensly ;
to Dr Hort in particular the editor was largely indebted for
counsel in matters of detail. The first edition of the portable
text was completed in 1894 (Zhe Old Testament in Greek
according to the Septuagint, vol. i., Genesis—4 Regn., 1887;
vol. ii, τ Esdr.—Tobit, 1890; vol. 111., Hosea—4 Macc.,
1894); a second and revised edition*® has now been carried
through the press (vol. 1., 1895; vol. il, 1896; vol. ili., 1899).
The larger Cambridge Septuagint has been entrusted to the
joint editorship of the Rev. A. E. Brooke, Fellow of King’s
College, and Mr N. McLean, Fellow of Christ’s College; and
the Octateuch, which will form the first volume, may be
expected in the course of a few years, It will reproduce the
text of the manual Septuagint, but the apparatus will embrace,
according to the original purpose of the Syndics, the evi-

1 Cambridge University Reporter, March 13, 1883.

* Much of the labour of revision was generously undertaken by Dr
Nestle, and valuable assistance was also rendered by several English
scholars ; see i. p. xxxiii., ii. p. xiv., iii. p. xviii. ft

190 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

dence of all the uncial MSS., and of a considerable number
of cursives “selected after careful investigation with the view
of representing the different types of text”; the Old Latin,
Egyptian, Syro-Hexaplar, and Armenian versions will also be
represented, whilst use will be made of the quotations in
Josephus as well as those in Philo and the more important
Christian fathers. Such an apparatus will fall far short of that
presented by Holmes and Parsons, in regard to the quantity
of evidence amassed; but efforts are being made to secure a
relatively high degree of accuracy, and the materials will be
selected and arranged in such a manner as to enable the
reader to study the grouping of the MSS. and other authorities.
Thus the work will proceed upon the principle formulated by
Lagarde: ‘‘editionem Veteris Testamenti Graeci...collatis in-
tegris codicum familiis esse curandam, nam familiis non acce-
dere auctoritatem e codicibus, sed codicibus e familiis'.”

A word may be added with regard to the text which will be
common to the manual and the larger edition of the Cam-
bridge Septuagint. It is that of the great Vatican MS., with
its lacunae supplied from the uncial MS. which occupies the
next place in point of age or importance. For a text formed
in this way no more can be claimed than that it represents on
the whole the oldest form of the Septuagint to be found in any
one of our extant MSS. But it supplies at least an excellent
standard of comparison, and until a critical text has been
produced’, it may fairly be regarded as the most trustworthy
presentation of the Septuagint version regarded as a whole.

II. EDITIONS OF PARTICULAR BOOKS, OR OF GROUPS OR
PoRTIONS OF Books.
THE PENTATEUCH.
G. A. Schumann, 1829; Pentateuchus hebraice et graece, 1
(Genesis only published).
1 V. T. Libr. can. praef. p. xvi.
2 Cf. E. Nestle, Zur Rekonstruktion der Septuaginta, in Philologus,
N. F. xii. (1899), p. 121 ff.

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. ΙΟΙ

GENESIS.

P. A. de Lagarde, Leipzig, 1868: Genests graece e fide editio-
nis Sixtinae addita scriplurae discrepantia e libris manu scriptis
a se collatis et edd. Complutenst et Aldina adcuratissime enotata.
The MSS. employed are ADEFGS, 29, 31, 44, 122, 130, 135.
The text is preceded by useful lists of the available uncial MSS.
and VSS. of the LXx.

DEUTERONOMY.

C. L. F. Hamann, Jena, 1874: Canticum Moyst ex Psalterio
guadruplict...manu scripto quod Bambergae asservatur.

JosHua.

A. Masius, Antwerp, 1574: Josuae tmperatoris historiae.
Readings are given from the Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosi-
anus.

JUDGES.

J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syxtagma, Works, vol. vii.). Two
texts in parallel columns (1) “εχ codice Romano,” (2) ‘ex codice
Alexandrino.”

O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867: lzber Ludicum secundum lxx.
interpretes. A specimen had previously appeared (in 1866).

P. A. de Lagarde, 1891 (in his Septuagznta-studien, 1. c.1.—V.).
Two texts.

A. E. Brooke and N. M*Lean, Cambridge, 1891: The Book of
Fudges in Greek, acc. to the text of Codex Alexandrinus.

[G. F. Moore, Andover, Mass. (in his Crztical and exegetical
Commentary on Judges, p. xlv.), promises an edition of the recen-
sion of the book exhibited by K, 54, 59, 75, 82, and Theodoret. |

RuTH.

Drusius, 1586, 1632.

L. Bos, Jena, 1788: Ruth ex versione lxx. interpretum secun-
dum exemplar Vaticanum.

O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1867 : Ῥοὺθ κατὰ τοὺς ο΄.

PSALMS.

Separate editions of the Greek Psalter were published at
Milan, 1481 (Bonacursius); Venice, 1486; Venice, before 1498
(Aldus Manutius); Basle, 1516 (in Azeronymi Opera, t. viii.,
ed. Pellicanus); Genoa, 1516(Octaplum Psalterium Justiniant) ;
Cologne, 1518 (Psalterium in tv, linguis cura Tohannis Potken).
Other known editions bear the dates 1524, 1530 (Ps. sextuplex),

192 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

1533, 1541, 1543, 1549, 1557, 1559, 1571, 1584, 1602, 1618, 1627,
1632, 1643, 1678 (the Psalter of cod. A), 1737, 1757, 1825, 1852,
1857, 1879 (Ps. tetraglotton, ed. Nestle), 1880, 1887 (Lagarde,
Novae psalterii gr. editionts specimen), 1889 (Swete, The Psalms
in Greek acc. to the LXX., with the Canticles; 2nd ed. 1896),
1892 (Lagarde, Ps. gr. guinguagena prima).

Jos.
Patrick Young, 1657 (in the Catena of Nicetas).
Franeker, 1663.

ESTHER.

J. Ussher, 1655 (in his Syz¢agma, Works, vol. vii.). Two
texts, one Hexaplaric from an Arundel MS. (H. P.93). A second
edition, Leipzig, 1695.

O. F. Fritzsche, Zurich, 1848: Ἔσθηρ. Duplicem libri textum
ad opt. Codd. emendavit et cum selecta lectionts vartetate edidit.
The Greek additions appear also in his Libri apocryphi V. T.
(see below).

HOsEA.

J. Philippeaux, Paris, 1636; Hos. 1.—iv., after Cod. Q.
D. Parens, Heidelberg, 1605: Hoseas commentarits tllus-
tratus.

AMOS.
Vater, Halle, 1810.

JONAH.
S. Minster, 1524, 1543-

ISAIAH.

S. Miinster, 1540 (in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin).
J. Curter, Paris, 1580 (in Procopit commentari in Tesaiam—
the text of Cod. Q).

JEREMIAH.

S. Munster, 1540.
G. L. Spohn, Leipzig, 1794: /Jeremias vates e vers. Judaeorum
Alex. ac religuorum tnterpretum Gr.; 2nd ed., 1824.

LAMENTATIONS.

Kyper, Basle, 1552: Lzbri tres de re gramm. Hebr. ling. (Hebr.,
Gr., Lat.).

Printed Texts of the Septuagint. 193

EZEKIEL.
Ἰεζεκιὴλ κατὰ τοὺς ο΄, Rome, 1840.

DaniEL (Theod.).

Ph. Melanchthon, 1546.
Wells, 1716.

DANIEL (LXX.).

5. de Magistris (?), Rome, 1772: Daniel secundum lax. ex
tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus e singulart Chistano
codice. Reprinted at Gottingen, 1773, 1774 (Michaelis); at
Utrecht, 1775 (Segaar) ; at Milan, 1788 (Bugati) ; and at Leipzig,
1845 (Hahn). The LxXx. text is also given in the editions of
Holmes and Parsons, Tischendorf, and Swete.

Non-CaANONICAL Books (in general).

J. A. Fabricius, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1691: Lzber Todzas,
Judith, oratio Manasse, Sapientia, et Ecclestasticus, gr. et lat.,
cum prolegoments. Other complete editions were published at
Frankfort on the Main, 1694, and at Leipzig, 1804 and 1837;
the best recent edition is that by

O. F. Fritzsche, Leipzig, 1871: Lzbr¢ apocryphi V. T. gr....
accedunt libri V. T. pseudepigraphi selectt [Psalmi Salomonis,
4—5 Esdras, Apocalypse of Baruch, Assumption of Moses].
This edition, besides the usual books, gives 4 Maccabees, and
exhibits Esther in two texts, and Tobit in three; there is a
serviceable preface and an extensive apparatus criticus.

WISDOM OF SOLOMON.

Older editions 1601, 1733, 1827.

Rensch, Friburg, 1858: Lzber Sapientiae sec. exemplar Vatz-
canum.

W. J. Deane, Oxford, 1881: The Book of Wisdom, the Greek
text, the Latin Vulgate, and the A. V.; with an introduction,
critical apparatus, and commentary.

WISDOM OF SIRACH.

D. Hoeschel, Augsburg, 1604: Sapientia Sirachi 5. Eccle-
stasticus, collatis lectionibus var....cum notis.

Linde, Dantzig, 1795: Senxtentiae [esu Stracidae ad fidem
codd. et versionum.

Bretschneider, Regensburg, 1806: Liber Jesu Siracidae.

Cowley-Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a portion of Eccle-
stasticus, &c. (Oxford, 1897); Schechter-Taylor, Wisdom of Ben
Sira (Cambridge, 1899).

= 5, 13

194 Printed Texts of the Septuagint.

TOBIT.
Reusch, Bonn, 1870: Lzbellus Tobtt e cod. Sinattico.

BARUCH.
Kneucker, Leipzig, 1879.

PSALMS OF SOLOMON.

J. L. de la Cerda, in an appendix to his Adversaria Sacra,
Lyons, 1626.

J. A. Fabricius, in Codex pseudepigraphus V. T., Hamburg
and Leipzig, 1715.

A. Hilgenfeld, in Zeztschrift fiir wissensch. Th. xi., and in
Messias Iudaeorum, Leipzig, 1869.

E. E. Geiger, Augsburg, 1871: Der Psalter Salomo’s heraus-
gegeben.

Ο. F. Fritzsche in Lzbrz apocryphi V. T. gr.

B. Pick, Alleghany, Pens., in the Presbyterian Review, 1883.

H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, Cambridge, 1891: Psalms of
the Pharisees commonly called the Psalms of Solomon; the
Greek text with an apparatus, notes, indices, and an introduc-
tion.

H. B. Swete in O. 7. zz Greek, vol. 111... Cambridge, 1894;
2nd ed. 1899.

O. von Gebhardt, Leipzig, 1895: 2226 Psalimen Salomo’s.

ENnocH (the Greek version of).

The fragments [in Ep. Jud. 14, 15; the Chronography of
G. Syncellus (ed. W. Dindorf, in Corpus hist. Byzant., Bonn,
1829); ZDMG. ix. p. 621 ff. (a scrap printed by Gildemeister) ;
the Mémotres publiés par les membres de la mission archéolo-
gigue francaise au Catre, ix., Paris, 1892] have been collected
by Dillmann, ber den neufundenen gr. Text des Henoch-buches
(1893); Lods, Lzvre ad’ Henoch (1893); Charles, Book of Enoch,
(1893), and are printed with an apparatus in the O. 7: zz Greek,
vol. 1ii., 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1899).

LITERATURE (upon the general subject of this chapter),

Le Long-Masch, ii. p. 262 ff., Fabricius-Harles, p. 673 ff.,
Rosenmiiller, Handbuch, i. p. 47 ff., Frankel, Vorstudien zu der
Septuaginta, p. 242ff., Tischendorf, V. 7. Gr, prolegomena
§ vii. sqq., Van Ess [Nestle], efclegomena δ 1 sqq., Loisy, Histoire
critique, 1. il. p. 65 ff., Nestle, Septuaginta-studien, 1. 1886, ii.
1896, 111. 1899; Urtext, p. 64 ff.

ἘΑΕΎΤΙ

THE CONTENTS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN
OLD TESTAMENT.

13—2

ΡΥ, Fe ee ee a ae

‘ ) ps

jeevc.vs oa Mammen Ge

CHAPTER 1:

TITLES, GROUPING, NUMBER, AND ORDER OF
THE BOOKS.

THE Greek Old Testament, as known to us through the
few codices which contain it as a whole, and from the lists
which appear in the Biblical MSS. or in ancient ecclesiastical
writings, differs from the Hebrew Bible in regard to the titles
of the books which are common to both, and the principle
upon which the books are grouped. The two collections differ
yet more materially in the number of the books, the Greek
Bible containing several entire writings of which there is no
vestige in the Hebrew canon, besides large additions to the
contents of more than one of the Hebrew books. These
differences are of much interest to the Biblical student, since
they express a tradition which, inherited by the Church from
the Alexandrian synagogue, has widely influenced Christian
opinion upon the extent of the Old Testament Canon, and the
character and purpose of the several books.

198 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

1. The following tables shew (A) the Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin titles of the canonical books of the Old Testament ;
(B) the order and grouping of the books in (1) lists of Jewish
origin, (2) the great uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible, (3) patris-
tic and synodical lists of the (a) Eastern, (ὁ) Western Church.

A. TITLES OF THE Books.

Hebrew Transliteration 1 Septuagint Vulgate Latin
MUNA Βρησίθ Γένεσις Genesis
miny mde) Οὐέλε σμώθ Ἔξοδος Exodus
872") Οὐικρά Λευ[ε]ιτικόν Leviticus
WT "Aumes pexwdelu? ᾿Αριθμοί Numeri
ὉΠ mds "EXe ἁδδεβαρείμ δΔευτερονόμιον Deuteronomium
yin ᾿Ιωσοῦε Bev Νούν ᾿Ιησοῦς Tosue
DEY Σαφατείμ Κριταί Iudices
Dey Σαμουήλ α΄, β' 1, 2
prob Οὐαμμὲλχ Δαβίδϑ Βασιλειῶν i , Regum a ;
Tye ; me Ἴεσσιά ᾽Ησαίας Isaias
WMT, my Ἴερεμιά ᾿Ιερεμίας Teremias
Sxprm Ἰεζεκιήλ *Tefekeph Ezechiel
yin ‘Qofe Osee
wos Ἰωήλ Toel
Diy ᾿Αμώς Amos
ΠΥΡῚ. ᾽Οβδειού,᾿ Αβδ[εϊιούΛ Abdias

1 As given by Origen ap. Eus. 257. 35. vi. 25.
2 Le. DPS win ‘fifth of the precepts’; cf. the Mishnic title WAD

OPS (Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 294). Jerome transliterates the ini-
tial word, vayedabber; cf. Epiph. (Lagarde, Symmicta ii. 178), ovaidaByp,
n ἐστιν ᾿Αριθμῶν.

ΕΠ} 321 (first two words of 1 Kings i.), Malachim, Jerome ;
δὃμαλαχείμ, Epiphanius.

Litles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

199

eS SS ee ee ee eae ee eres

Hebrew
mi
np
pina, Din)
papan
7228)
"5
ΠΡ]
NID
DAA

novi
mbit.
own wy

ny?
TIN

n2np
TADS
Sy
Si
Dana

Transliteration

Σφὰρ θελλείμ

Μελώθ:
Ἰώβ
Zip ἁσσιρίμ

Κωέλθ
Ἔσθήρ
Δανιήλ

Ἔζρά

Δαβρὴ ἰαμείν

Septuagint

᾽Ιωνᾶς

Μ[ε]ιχαίας
Ναούμ
᾿Αμβακούμ
Σοφονίας
᾿Αγγαῖος
Ζαχαρίας
Μαλαχίας

Ψαλμοί, Ψαλτή-
ριον

Παροιμίαι

Ἰώβ

Ασμα, ἄσματα
[ἀσμάτων]

‘Povd

Θρῆνοι

᾿Εκκλησιαστής

Ἔσθήρ

Δανιήλ

Ἔσδρας

Παραλειπομένων
a’ ‘ β΄

1 With variants Μεσλώθ, Μισλώθ (leg. for. Μσλώθ).
δμεθαλώθ, Epiphanius.

* Origen includes Ruth with Judges under Σαφατείμ.
ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλη μικρὰ βίβλος ἣ καλεῖται Κινώθ [Mishn.

5 Epiph. ἌΣ

nip]; ἥτις ἑρμηνεύεται Θρῆνος ᾿Ιερεμίου.

Vulgate Latin
Ionas

Michaeas
Nahum
Habacuc
Sophonias
Aggaeus
Zacharias
Malachias

Psalmi

Proverbia
lob

Canticum canti-
corum

Ruth

Threni, Lamen-
tationes

Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Esdras 1, 2

Paralipomenon
I, 2

Masaloth, Jerome ;

200 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

B (1). ORDER OF THE Books IN JEWISH Lists’.

TALMUDIC SPANISH GERMAN ἃ MASSORETIC PRINTED
MSS. FRENCH MSS. MSS. BIBLES
I Zorah "9 ve τ "
Il Nebitim δ Pa i τ
Joshua Joshua Joshua Joshua Joshua
Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges
Samuel Samuel Samuel Samuel I, 2 Samuel
Kings Kings Kings Kings I, 2 Kings
Jeremiah Isaiah Jeremiah Isaiah Isaiah
Ezekiel Jeremiah Isaiah Jeremiah Jeremiah
Isaiah Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel
xii Prophets xii Prophets xii Prophets xii Prophets eer
Joe
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zachariah
Malachi
111 Kethubim - of Ἢ Αἱ
Ruth Chronicles Psalms Chronicles Psalms
Psalms Psalms Proverbs Psalms Proverbs
Job Job Job Job Job
Proverbs Proverbs Song of Songs Proverbs Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes Ruth | Ruth Ruth Ruth
Song of Songs Song of Songs Lamentations Song of Songs Lamentations
Lamentations Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes
Daniel Lamentations Esther Lamentations Esther
Esther Esther Daniel Esther Daniel
Ezra-Neh. Daniel Ezra-Neh. Daniel Ezra-Neh.
Chronicles Ezra-Neh. Chronicles Ezra-Neh. 1, 2 Chronicles

1 This list has been adapted from Ryle, Canon of the Ο. 7. (table
following p. 280).

Littles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 201

B (2). ORDER OF THE Books ΙΝ Unciat MS. BIBLEs.

Codex Vaticanus (B) Codex Sinaiticus (Ν)

Γένεσις Γένεσις
᾿Ἐξοδος Bs
Λευειτικόν 7
᾿Αριθμοί ᾿Αριθμοί
Δευτερονόμιον is
"Inoods Ἔ
Κριταί τῇ
“Povd τὰ

*

Βασιλειῶν a’—6’

Παραλειπομένων a’, β΄

Ἔσδρας α΄, B’

Παραλειπομένων α΄, [β]

Ἔσδρας [α΄], 8’

Ψαλμοί Ἐσθήρ

ἸΠαροιμίαι Τωβείθ
᾿Ἐκκλησιαστής ᾽Τουδείθ

ἴΑσμα Μακκαβαίων a’, δ'
᾿Ιώβ Ἢσαίας

Σοφία Σαλωμῶνος
Σοφία Σειράχ

Ἔσθήρ

᾿Ιουδείθ 4

Τωβείτ Σ

ὯὩσῆε Σ

᾿Αμώς εν

Μειχαίας ῳ

Ἰωήλ "lain

᾿᾽Οβδειού ᾿Αβδειού

Ἰωνᾶς ᾽᾿Ιωνᾶς

Ναούμ Ναούμ

᾿Αμβακούμ, ᾿Αμβακούμ

Σοφονίας Σοφονίας

“Ayyatos ᾿Αγγαῖος

Ζαχαρίας ZLaxapias

Mandaxias Μαλαχίας

Ἢσαίας Ψαλμοὶ Aad pra’ (subscr.)
Ἰερεμίας ἸΠαροιμίαι [+ Σολομῶντος subscr.]
Βαρούχ ᾿Εκκλησιαστής

Θρῆνοι “Agua ἀσμάτων
᾿Επιστολὴ ᾿Ιερεμίου Σοφία Σαλομῶντος
Ἰεζεκιήλ Σοφία ᾿Τησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ

Δανιήλ

Ἰερεμίας
Θρῆνοι ᾿ἸἹερεμίου
*

Ἰώβ

202 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

Codex Alexandrinus (A)

Codex Basiliano-Venetus (N+V)
Τένεσις κόσμου ἐὴ

ἜἜξοδος Αἰγύπτου μὲ
Λευειτικόν (N) Λευιτικόν
᾿Αριθμοί ᾿Αριθμοί
Δευτερονόμιον Δευτερονόμιον
᾽᾿Ιησοῦς vids Νανή ᾽Τησοῦς
Κριταί “Povd

Kpirai

Βασιλειῶν α΄ ---δ΄
Παραλειπομένων a’, B’
"Ἔσδρας [α΄], β΄

Ῥούθ [ὁμοῦ βιβλία η1

Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ΄'

Παραλειπομένων α΄, B’ [ὁμοῦ βιβλία ς΄]
Προφῆται ις΄

‘Qaje a’ "Eo Op

᾿Αμώς β΄ i

Μιχαίας +’ ‘3

᾽Ἰωήλ δ΄ τ

᾿Αβδειού ε΄ (Ν) ᾿Τώβ (szdscr.)
᾿Ιωνᾶς ς΄ Παροιμίαι
Ναούμ ζ΄ ᾿Ἐκκλησιαστής

“Acua ἀσμάτων
Σοφία Σολομῶντος
Σοφία ᾿Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ

᾿Αμβακούμ η΄
Σοφονίας θ΄
᾿Αγγαῖος ι΄

Ζαχαρίας ια΄ ‘Qoje
Μαλαχίας ιβ΄ ᾿Αμώς
᾿Ησαίας προφήτης (γ΄ ᾿Ιωήλ
Ἱερεμίας προφήτης ιδ΄ ᾿Αβδιού
Βαρούχ Ἰωνᾶς
Θρῆνος [+ Ἰερεμίου, subscr.] Μιχαίας
Ἐπιστολὴ ᾿Ιερεμίου Ναούμ
᾿᾽Τεζεκιὴλ προφήτης ιε΄ ᾿Αμβακούμ
Δανιήλ [+ προφήτης 1S’, catal. | Lodovias
"Eo Op ᾿Αγγαῖος
Τωβίτ (Τωβείτ, στὖεε7.) Zaxapias
᾽Ιουδείθ Μαλαχίας
Ἔζρας a’ ὁ ἱερεύς ("Eogpas a’ ἱερεύς, Ἡσαίας
catal.) "Tepeulas
"Etpas β΄ ἱερεύς (Ἔσζρας β΄ ἱερεύς Βαρούχ
catal.) Θρῆνοι
Μακκαβαίων α΄---δ' ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ
Ψαλτήριον (Ψαλμοὶ pr’ καὶ ἰδιόγρα- Δανιήλ
gos a’ subscr., seg. pdai ιδ΄. Ψ αλ- Τωβίτ
τήριον μετ᾽ woav catal.) ᾽Τουδίθ
Ἰώβ Μακκαβαίων α΄ ---δ΄
Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος
᾿Εκκλησιαστής

ἔλσματα (ἾΑσμα subscr.) ἀσμάτων

Σοφία Σολομῶντος (Σ. Σολομῶνος
subscr.;+% Πανάρετος, catal.)

Σοφία ᾿Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ (Σειράχ,
subscr.)

Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος, catal.

Litles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 205

B (3) (a). ORDER OF THE BOOKS IN PATRISTIC AND
SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.

1. Melito (ag. Eus. 27... iv. 26).

Mwvoéws πέντε
Γένεσις
Εξοδος
᾿Αριθμοί
Λευιτικόν
Δευτερονόμιον
᾿Ιησοῦς Ναυή
Κριταί
ἹῬούθ
Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα
Παραλειπομένων δύο
Ψαλμῶν Δαβίδ

Σαλομῶνος Παροιμίαι, ἣ καὶ Σοφίαϊ

᾿Εκκλησιαστής
“Acua ἀσμάτων
"THB
Προφητῶν
Ἢσαίου
Ἰερεμίου
Τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ
Δανιήλ
Ἰεζεκιήλ
"Ἔσδρας

3. Athanasius (62. fest. 39,
Migne, P.G. xxvi. 1437).
Τένεσις
*Eéodos
Λευιτικόν
᾿Αριθμοί
Δευτερονόμιον
᾽᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή
Κριταί
“Povd
Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα βιβλία
Παραλειπομένων a’, β΄
"Ἔσδρας, a’, β΄
Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν
ἸΤαροιμίαι
᾽᾿κκλησιαστής

2. Origen (af. Eus. H.Z. vi. 25).
Γένεσις
”HEodos
Λευιτικόν
᾿Αριθμοί
Δευτερονόμιον
"Inoots υἱὸς Ναυή
Κριταί
“Povd
Βασιλειῶν a’ —6’
Παραλειπομένων a’, β΄
Ἔσδρας a’, B’
Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν
Σολομῶντος ἸΤαροιμίαι
᾿Εκκλησιαστής
*Acua ἀσμάτων
᾿Ησαίας
᾿Ιερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ Ἐπι-

στολῇ ἐν ἑνί
Δανιήλ
᾿Τεζεκιήλ
Ἰώβ
"Eo O7p

Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ
Τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά

4. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cazech. iv. 35).
Ai Μωσέως πρῶται πέντε βίβλοι

Téveots

*EHéodos

Λευιτικόν

᾿Αριθμοί

Δευτερονόμιον
Ἑξῆς δέ

᾽Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυή

Τῶν Κριτῶν βιβλίον μετὰ τῆς ‘Pov
Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἱστορικῶν βιβλίων

Βασιλειῷν α΄---δ'

Παραλειπομένων a’, B’

Tot "Ἔσδρα a’, β΄

᾽ἜΕσθηήρ (δωδεκάτη)

1 Cf. Eus. H. £. iv. 22 ὁ πᾶς τῶν ἀρχαίων χορὸς Πανάρετον Σοφίαν τὰς

Σολομῶνος παροιμίας ἐκάλουν.

204 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

“Agua ἀσμάτων
᾿Ιώβ
Προφῆται
Οἱ δώδεκα
᾿Ησαίας
᾿Ἰερεμίας καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Βαρούχ,
Θρῆνοι, ᾿Ἐπιστολή
Ἰεζεκιήλ
Δανιήλ
Ἔστι καὶ ἕτερα βιβλία τούτων ἔξωθεν,
οὐ κανονιζόμενα μὲν τετυπωμένα δὲ
παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι
τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις...
Σοφία Σολομῶντος
Σοφία Lipax

Ul

5°. Epiphanius (Zaer. 1. i 5).

α΄. Τένεσις

β΄. ᾿Ἔ ξοδος

γ΄. Λευιτικόν

δ΄. ᾿Αριθμοί

ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον
ς΄. ᾿Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Navy
ζ΄. Τῶν Κριτῶν

η΄. Τῆς Ῥούθ

6’, Tod lwp

ι(. To Ψαλτήριὸόν
ια΄. Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος
ιβ΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής

>

‘uy. Τὸ ἴΑσμα τῶν ἀσμάτων

ιδ'΄--ζ΄. Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ'

ιη΄, ιθ΄. ἸΠαραλειπομένων a’, B’

κ΄. Τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον

xa’. "Hoalas ὁ προφήτης

κβ΄. "Ἱερεμίας ὁ προφήτης, μετὰ τῶν
Θρήνων καὶ ᾿Επιστολῶν αὐτοῦ
τε καὶ Βαρούχ

κγ΄. ᾿Ιεζεκιὴλ ὁ προφήτης

κδ΄. Δανιὴλ ὁ προφήτης

κε΄, KS”. "Ἔσδρα a’, B’

xe’. "EoOnp

Ἢ Σοφία τοῦ Σιράχ
Ἢ [Σοφία] τοῦ Σολομῶντος

Τὰ δὲ στιχηρὰ τύγχανει πέντε
Ἴω
Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν
Παροιμίαι
᾿Εκκλησιαστής
ἾΑσμα ἀἀσμάτων

βιβλίον)

"Emi δὲ τούτοις τὰ προφητικὰ πέντε
Τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν μία βίβλος
ἮἮσαίου μία
"Tepeutou [μία] μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ

Θρήνων καὶ ᾿Επιστολῆς
᾿Ιεζεκιήλ
Δανιὴλ (εἰκοστὴ δευτέρα βίβλος)

Τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα ἔξω κείσθω ἐν δευ-

τέρῳ

(ἑπτακαιδέκατον

5>. Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 4).

Πέντε νομικαί (7 πεντάτευχος ἣ Kal

νομοθεσία)
(Γένεσις----Δευτερονὀμιον)

Πέντε στιχήρεις

(Ἰώβ, Ψαλτήριον, ἸΠαροιμίαι Σα-
λομῶντος, Εἰκκλησιαστής, Ασμα
ἀσμάτωνῚὴ

Αλλη πεντάτευχος, τὰ καλούμενα Τρα-
φεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ ᾿Αγιόγραφα λε-
γόμενα (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Νανή, βίβλος
Κριτῶν μετὰ τῆς Ῥούθ, Παραλει-
πομένων a’, B’, Βασιλειῶν a’, β’,
Βασιλειῶν +’, δ΄)

Ἢ προφητικὴ πεντάτευχος (τὸ δωδεκα-
πρόφητον, ᾿Ησαίας, ᾿Ιερεμίας, ᾽Τεζε-
κιήλ, Δανιηλ)

ΑΛλλαι δύο (τοῦ "Εσδρα δύο, μία Noyt-
ζομένη, τῆς ᾿Βσθήρ)

Ἢ τοῦ Σολομῶντος ἡ Πανάρετος
λεγομένη
Ἢ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 205

5°. Epiphanius (de ens. et fond. 23).
Téveois κόσμου
*Héodos τῶν υἱῶν Ισραὴλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου
Λευιτικόν
᾿Αριθμῶν
Τὸ Δευτερονόμιον
Ἢ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Navy
Ἢ τοῦ ᾿Ιώβ
Ἢ τῶν Κριτῶν
ἯΙ. τῆς Βοῦθ
Τὸ Ψαλτήριον
Τῶν Παραλειπομένων a’, β'
Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ'
Ἢ Παροιμιῶν
Ὃ Ἐκκλησιαστής
Τὸ “Acuna τῶν ἀσμάτων
Τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον
Τοῦ προφήτου ᾿Ησαίου
Tod ᾿Ιερεμίου
Tod ᾿Τεζεκιήλ
Tod Δανιήλ
Τοῦ "Ἔσδρα α΄, β'
Τῆς ᾿Εσθήρ

7. Amphilochius (ad Seleuc. ap. Greg. Naz.
carm. 11. vil., Migne, P.G. xxxvii. 1593).
Ἢ πεντάτευχος
(Κτίσις, "Εξοδος, Λευιτικόν, ᾽᾿Αριθ-
μοί, Δευτερονόμιον)
᾽Ιησοῦς
Οἱ Κριταί
Ἧ ‘Pové
Βασιλειῶν α΄---δ'
ἸΠαραλειπομένων a’, B’
Ἔσδρας a’, p’
Στιχηραὶ βίβλοι ε΄
(Ἰώβ, Ψαλμοί, τρεῖς Σολομῶντο----
Παροιμίαι, Εκκλησιαστής,, Ασμα
ἀσμάτων)
ἹΠροφῆται οἱ δώδεκα
(Ὡσῆε, ᾿Αμώς, Μιχαίας, ᾿Ιωήλ,
᾿Αβδίας, ᾿Ιωνᾶς, Ναούμ, ᾿Αμβα-
κούμ, Logovias, Αγγαῖος, Zaxa-
ρίας, Μαλαχίας)
Προφῆται οἱ τέσσαρες
(Ἤσαίας, ᾿Τερεμίας, ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ, Δα-
vinr)
Τούτοις προσεγρκίνουσι τὴν ᾿Εσθήρ
τινες

6. Gregory of Nazianzus (carmz. 1. xii. 5 ff.).
Βίβλοι ἱστορικαὶ ιβ΄

(Γένεσις, Ἑξοδος, Λευιτικόν, ᾿Αριθ-
μοί, Δεύτερος νόμος, ᾿Τησοῦς, Kpu-
ταί, ἹῬούθ, ἸΠράξεις βασιλήων,
Παραλειπόμεναι, ~Eodpas)

Βίβλοι στιχηραὶ ε΄

(Ἰώβ, Δαυίδ, τρεῖς Σολομωντίαι,
Ἐκκλησιαστής, ἴάσμα, Ilapo-
μίαι)

Βίβλοι προφητικαὶ e’

(Οἱ δώδεκα---Ὡσῆε,᾽ Αμώς, Μιχαίας,
᾿Ιωήλ, ᾿Ιωνᾶς, ᾿Αβδίας, Ναούμ,
᾿Αββακούμ, Σοφονίας, ᾿Αγγαῖος.
Ζαχαρίας, Μαλαχίας---Ησαίας.
᾿Ιερεμίας, ᾿Εζεκιήλ, Δανιῆλος)

8. Pseudo-Chrysostom (sy. script. sacr.
praef.). Migne, P.G. lvi. 513 sqq.

Τὸ ἱστορικόν, ws

Ἢ Τένεσις

Ἢ ᾿Εξοδος

To Λευιτικόν

Οἱ ᾿Αριθμοί

To Δευτερονόμιον

Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή

Οἱ Κριταί

ἹῬούθ

Αἱ Βασιλεῖαι a’—-6’

Εσδρας
Τὸ συμβουλευτικόν, ὡς

Αἱ ἹἸΠαροιμίαι

Ἢ τοῦ Σιρὰχ Σοφία

‘O ᾿Εκκλησιαστής

Τὰ “Acuara τῶν ἀσμάτων
Τὸ προφητικόν, ὡς

Οἱ δεκαὲξ προφηταί

“Pov (?)

Δαυείδ

J 2 , \
(ἡ ὀκτάτευχο-)

206 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

9. Σύνοψις ev ἐπιτόμῳ αὖ. Lagarde,
Septuagintast,, ii. p. ὅο ἔ.}

Ta Μωσαϊκά
a’. Téveots
β΄. "Εξοδος
γ΄. Λευιτικόν
δ΄. ᾿Αριθμοί
ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον
Τὰ ἕτερα
ς΄. ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Navy
- Kperat
η΄. Ῥούθ
Τέλος τῆς ὀκτατεύχου
Τὸ τετραβασίλειον
θ΄. Βασιλειῶν a’
ι(. Βασιλειῶν β’
ια΄. Βασιλειῶν γ'
ιβ΄. Βασιλειῶν 6
ιγ΄. Παραλειπόμενα a’
ιδ΄. Παραλειπόμενα β’'
ιε΄. Ἔσδρα a’
iS’. Ἔσδρα β’
ιζ΄. Ἐσθήρ

ιη΄. Ἰωβίτ
ιθ΄. ᾿Ιουδήθ
τς τ

Τοῦ Σολομῶντος
κα΄. Σοφία
κβ΄. ἸΙαροιμίαι
κγ΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής
κδ΄. “Agua ἀσμάτων
Οἱ 18’ προφῆται

κε΄. ᾽Ὦσηέ
KS. ᾿Αμώς
Ke’, Μιχαίας
κη΄. ᾿Ιωήλ
κθ΄. ᾿Αβδιού
λ΄. Ἰωνᾶς

λα΄. Ναούμ
λβ΄. ᾿Αββακούμ
λγ΄. Σοφονίας
λδ΄. ᾿Αγγαῖος
λε΄. Δαχαρίας
AS’. Μαλαχίας
Οἱ δ΄ μεγάλοι προφῆται

dg’. Ἡσαΐας
λη΄. Ἱερεμίας
λθ΄. ‘Legexunr
μ΄. Δανιήλ

Τέλος τῶν ἕξ καὶ δέκα προφητῶν
μα΄. Σοφία ᾿Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Σιράχ

BIT ~WUR_DWA

--
>
.

Anonymi dial. Timothei et Aquilae.
Γένεσις

"ΕΒ ξοδος

Τὸ Λευιτικόν

Οἱ ᾿Αριθμοί

Τὸ Δευτερονόμιον

Ἢ Μωσαικὴ
πεντάτευχος

. Ὁ τοῦ Navy

Οἱ Κριταί, μετὰ τῆς ‘Povd
Τὰ Παραλειπόμενα a’, β'
Τῶν βασιλειῶν a’, β΄

Τῶν βασιλειῶν γ΄, 5

ca’. "IwB
ιβ΄. Τὸ Ψαλτήριον τοῦ Δαυίδ
ιγ΄. Αἱ Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος

SJ

~
m

~
.

x
85

ὃς
A)

. Ὃ Ἐκκλησιαστής, σὺν τοῖς “A-

σμασιν
Τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον' ᾿ἩΗσαίας,
"Tepeuias, ᾿Τεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ,
Ἔσδρας

Τοβίας
Ἢ Σοφία Σολομῶντος
Ἢ Σοφία ᾿Τησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ

1 Lagarde, /.c.: ‘‘ich wiederhole sie, von mir redigiert.”

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

tz. Junilius de cust. reg. div. legis i. 3 ff,
(ed. Kihn).
Htstoria (xvii)
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numeri
Deuteronomium
Iesu Nave
Iudicum
Ruth
Regnn. i—iv
[Adiungunt plures Paralipome-
non ii, Iob i, Tobiae i, Es-
drae ii, Iudith i, Hester i,
Macchabaeorum 11]
Prophetia (xvii)
Psalmorum cl
Osee
Esaiae
Ioel
Amos
Abdiae
Ionae
Michaeae
Naum
Habacuc
Sophoniae
Hieremiae
Ezechiel
Daniel
Aggaeli
Zachariae
Malachiae
Proverbia (ii)
Salomonis Proverbiorum
Tesu filii Sirach
[Adiungunt quidam libr. Sapi-
entiae et Cantica Cantico-
rum |
Dogmatica (i)
Ecclesiastes

13. Leontius (de Secfts ii.).
Ta ἱστορικὰ βιβλία (ι7)

(Γένεσις, "Εξοδος, ᾿Αριθμοί, Λευιτι-
κόν, Δευτερονόμιον" ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῦ
Navy, Κριταί, ‘Pov, Λόγοι τῶν
βασιλειῶν a’—6’, Παραλειπόμε-
ναι, Εσδρα)

207

12. Pseudo-Athanasii syz. scr. sacr.
(Migne, P.G. xxviil. 283 ff.).
Γένεσις
Εξοδος
Λευιτικόν
᾿Αριθμοί
Δευτερονόμιον
᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυή
Κριταί
“Povd
Βασιλειῶν a’, β'
Βασιλειῶν γ΄, δ'
Παραλειπομένων a’, B’
"Ἔσδρας a’, β'
Ψαλτήριον Δαβιτικόν
Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος
᾿Εκκλησιαστὴς τοῦ αὐτοῦ
ἴΑσμα ἀσμάτων
Ἰώβ
ἹΙροφῆται δώδεκα εἰς ἕν ἀριθμούμενοι
‘Qoje, ᾿Αμώς, Μιχαίας, ᾿Ιωήλ, ᾿Αβ-
διού, ᾿Τωνᾶς, Ναούμ, ᾿Αμβακούμ,
Σοφωνίας, ᾿Αγγαῖος, Ζαχαρίας,
Μαλαχίας
Ἑξῆς δὲ ἕτεροι τέσσαρες
Ἢσαίας
Ἴερεμίας
Ἔζεκιήλ
Δανιὴλ
"Exros δὲ τούτων εἰσὶ πάλιν ἕτερα
βιβλία κ-τ.λ. (as in Athanasius,
but adding
Μακκαβαικὰ βιβλία δ'
Ψαλμοὶ καὶ ᾧδὴ Σολομῶντος
Σωσάννα)

14. John of Damascus (de fide orthod.
iv. 17).
Ilpwrn πεντάτευχος, 7 Kal νομοθεσία
(Γένεσις, “Eéodos, Λευιτικόν, ᾿Αριθ-
μοί, Δευτερονόμιον)
Δευτέρα πεντάτευχος, τὰ καλούμενα
Γραφεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ ᾿Αγιόγραφα
(Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Νανή, Κριταὶ μετὰ

208 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

Τὰ προφητικά (e’)

(Ἠσαίας, ᾿Ἰερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Aa- ’

νιήλ, τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον)
Τὰ παραινετικά (δ΄)
(Ἰώβ, Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος, Ἔκ-
κλησιαστής, TO Agua τῶν ἀσμά-
των, τὸ Ψαλτήριον)

15. Nicephorus, Stichometria.

A. Ὅσαι εἰσὶ γραφαὶ ἐκκλησιαζόμεναι
καὶ κεκανονισμέναι

α΄. Τένεσις στίχ. ,ὃτ'

β΄. Ἔξοδος στίχ. Bw’

γ΄. Λευιτικόν στίχ. βψ'

δ΄. ᾿Αριθμοί στίχ. yon’

ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον στίχ. yp"

δ “Inoots crix. Bp’

ζ΄. Κριταὶ καὶ Ῥούθ στίχ. βυν’

η΄. Βασιλειῶν a’, B’ στίχ. Bop’

θ΄. Βασιλειῶν vy’, 6’ στίχ. Bory’

U. Παραλειπόμενα α΄, β' στίχ. <p’

ια΄. "Εσδρας a’, B’ στίχ. <p’

ιβ΄. Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν στίχ. ,ερ΄

ιγ΄. Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος στίχ.

ay

ιδ΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής στίχ. ψν'

ιε΄. ἴλσμα ἀσμάτων στίχ. on’
‘S's Ἰώβ στίχ. aw’
ιζ΄. "Hoaias προφήτης στίχ. yo"
ιη΄. ᾿Ιερεμίας προφήτης atix. 7δὲ

1 pees Bapovx στίχ. ara

κ΄. “Tefexund στίχ. δ΄

κα΄. Δανιήλ στίχ. β΄

κβ΄. Οἱ δώδεκα προφῆται στίχ. ,γ'

Ὁμοῦ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης
βίβλοι κβ΄.

τῆς 'Ῥούθ, Βασιλειῶν a’, β', Βασι-
λειῶν γ΄, 5’, τῶν Παραλειπομένων
a’, β᾽)
Τρίτη πεντάτευχος, αἱ στιχηραὶ βίβλοι
(τοῦ Ἰώβ, τὸ Ψαλτήριον, ἸΠαροι-
plac Σολομῶντος, ᾿Εκκλησιαστής,
τοῦ αὐτοῦ, Ta” ΄Ασματα TOV’ Ασμά-
των τοῦ αὐτοῦ)
Τετάρτη πεντάτευχος ἣ προφητική
(τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον, ᾿Ησαίας, ᾽Ιε-
ρεμίας, ᾿Τεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ)
ἔἤΛλλαι δύο
(τοῦ Ἔσδρα a’, β΄, ἡ ἜΠσθηρ)

Ἢ Πανάρετος τ. ἐ. 7 Σοφία τοῦ Σολο-
μῶντος
Ἢ Σοφία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ

16. Ebedjesu (catad, libr. Eccil., Assemani,
Bibl. Or. iii. 5 f.).

Genesis

Exodus

Liber sacerdotum

Numeri

Deuteronomii

Josue filii Nun

Iudicum

Samuel

Regum

Liber Dabariamin

Ruth

Psalmi David Regis

Proverbia Salomonis

Cohelet

Sirat Sirin

Bar-Sira

Sapientia Magna

lob

Isaias

Hosee

Toel

Amos

Abdias

Ionas

Michaeas

Nahum

Habacuc

Sophonias

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

209

B. Ὅσαι ἀντιλέγονται καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλη-
σιάζονται
α΄. Μακκαβαϊκὰ γ' στίχ. fr’
β΄. Σοφία Σολομῶντος στίχ. ,ap’
γ΄. Σοφία υἱοῦ τοῦ Σιρὰχ στίχ.
Bu!
δ΄. Ψαλμοὶ καὶ @dal Σολομῶντος
στίχ. Bp’
ε΄. Ἐσθὴρ στίχ. Tv’
ς΄, ᾿Ιουδὶθ στίχ. αψ'
ζ΄. Σωσάννα στίχ. φ'
η΄. Τωβίτ, ὁ καὶ Τωβίας στίχ. ψ'

17. Laodicene Canons (Ϊχ.).

~

Γένεσις κόσμου

. ἼἝξοδος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου

Λευιτικόν

᾿Αριθμοί

Δευτερονόμιον

Ἰησοῦς Ναυή

Κριταί, ‘Pov

Ἔσθηρ

Βασιλειῶν a’, B’

Βασιλειῶν γ΄, δ΄

. Παραλειπομένων α΄, B’

ιβ΄. "Ἔσδρας a’, β΄

ιγ΄. Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν pv’

ιδ΄. Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος

ιε΄. ᾿Εκκλησιαστης

.ἾΑσμα ἀσμάτων

ιζ΄. Ἰώβ

in. Δώδεκα προφῆται

ιθ΄. ᾿Ησαίας

κ΄. ᾿Ιερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι καὶ
Ἔπιστολαί

κα΄. ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ

κβ΄. Δανιήλ

~ >

~97r Dea

23) i)

~
Φ .

cc
> Ὲ

Aggaeus

Zacharias

Malachias

Hieremias

Ezechiel

Daniel

Iudith

Esther

Susanna

Esdras

Daniel Minor

Epistola Baruch

Liber traditionis Seniorunt

Josephi proverbia

Historia filiorum Samonae []. 6.-
Maccab. iv]

Liber Maccabaeorum (i—iii)

18. Apostolic Canons (Ixxxiv.),

Μωυσέως πέντε

(Γένεσις, “Eéodos, Λευιτικόν, ᾿Α-
ριθμοί, Δευτερονὀμιον)

᾿Ιησοῦς Ναυή

ἹῬούθ

Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα

Παραλειπομένων δύο

Ἔσδρα δύο

Ἔσθηήρ

Μακκαβαίων τρία

Ἰώβ

Ψαλτήριον

Σολομῶντος τρία
(Παροιμίαι, ᾿Εἰκκλησιαστής,

“Acua ἀσμάτωνῚ

Προφητῶν δεκάδυο ἕν

᾿Ησαίου ἕν

᾿ερεμίου ἕν

᾽Τεξεκιὴλ ἕν

Δανιὴλ ἕν

Ἔξωθεν δὲ προσιστορείσθω μανθά-
νειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους τὴν Σοφίαν
τοῦ πολυμαθοῦς Σιράχ

19. List in Codd. Barocc. 206; 8.17. Add. 17469; Cozsl. 120.

Περὶ τῶν & βιβλίων, καὶ ὅσα τούτων
ἐκτός

α΄. Τένεσις

β΄. "Ἑξοδος

γ΄. Λευιτικόν

δ΄, ᾿Αριθμοί

S: S;

ε΄. Δευτερονόμιον

=’. ᾿ΙΤησοῦς

ζ΄. Κριταὶ καὶ ‘Pové
ἡ΄--ια΄. Βασιλειῶν a’—6’
ιβ΄. Παραλειπόμενα a’, B’
ιγ΄. Ἰώβ

14

210 7) 7115, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

ιδ΄, Ψαλτήριον
ιε΄. Παροιμίαι
iS”. ᾿Εκκλησιαστής
ιζ΄. ἴΑσμα ἀσμάτων
ιη΄. "Εσδρας

ιθ΄. Ὥσῆε

κ΄. ᾿Αμώς

κα΄. Μιχαίας

κβ΄. ᾿Ιωήλ

κγ΄. ᾿Ιωνᾶς

κδ΄. ᾿Αβδιού

κε΄. Ναούμ

KS’. ᾿Αμβακούμ
κζ΄. Σοφονίας

κη΄. ᾿Αγγαῖος

B (3) (4).

κθ΄. Ζαχαρίας

λ΄. Μαλαχίας

λα΄. "Hoalas

λβ΄. Ἱερεμίας

λγ΄. Ἰεζεκιήλ

λδ΄, Δανιήλ!
* *

* *

Kal ὅσα ἔξω τῶν ξ΄

α΄. Σοφία Σολομῶντος

β΄. Σοφία Σιράχ

γ΄-ς΄. Μακκαβαίων [α΄---δ1
ζ΄. ᾽Εσθηήρ

η΄. ᾿Ἰουδήθ

9. TwBir

ORDER OF THE ΒΟΟΚΒ IN PATRISTIC AND

SYNODICAL LISTS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.

1. Hilary, prol. in libr. Psalm.
. Moysi{s] libri quinque
vi. Iesu Naue
vii. Iudicum et Ruth
vill. Regnorum i, ii
ix. Regnorum iii, iv
x. Paralipomenon i, li
xi. Sermones dierum Esdrae
xii. Liber Psalmorum
xiili—xv. Salomonis Proverbia, Ec-
clesiastes, Canticum Canticorum
xvi. Duodecim Prophetae
xvii—xxiil. Esaias, Jeremias cum
Lamentatione et Epistola, Daniel,
Ezekiel, Job, Hester

[xxiii—xxiv. Tobias, Judith]?

2. Ruffinus (Comm. in symb. 36).
Moysi[s] quinque libri
(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Nu-
meri, Deuteronomium)
Iesus Naue
Iudicum, simul cum Ruth
Regnorum iv
Paralipomenon (= Dierum liber)
Esdrae ii
Hester
Prophetarum
(Esaias, Ieremias, Ezechiel, Daniel,
ΧΙ Prophetarum liber i)
lob

Psalmi David
Salomonfis] iii
(Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica
Canticorum)

Sapientia Salomonis

Sapientia Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus)
Tobias

Iudith

Maccabaeorum libri

1 The B.M. MS. counts Ruth as a separate book and after Daniel

places the numeral λε΄.

2 «Quibusdam autem visum est additis Tobia et Judith xxiv libros
secundum numerum Graecarum literarum connumerare.”

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 211

3. Augustine (de doctr. Chr. ii. 13). 4. Innocent I. (ef. ad Exsuperiumt).
[Historiae :] Moysi[s] libri quinque
Quinque Moyseos [libri] (Genesis, Exodi, Levitici, Nu-
(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, meri, Deuteronomii)
Numeri, Deuteronomium) Tesu Naue
Tesu Naue Tudicum
Iudicum Regnorum libri iv
Ruth Ruth
Regnorum libri iv Prophetarum libri xvi
Paralipomenon libri 11 Salomonis libri v
lob Psalterium
Tobias Historiarum :
Esther Job
Iudith Tobias
Machabaeorum libri ii Hester
Esdrae libri 11 Iudith
Prophetae : Machabaeorum libri it
David liber Psalmorum Esdrae libri ii
Salamonis libri iii Paralipomenon libri 11

(Proverbiorum, Canticum Can-
ticorum, Ecclesiastes)
Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus }
Prophetarum xii
(Osee, Ioel, Amos, Ab-
dias, Ionas, Michaeas,
Nahum, Habacuc, So-
phonias, Aggaeus, Za-
charias, Malachias)
Prophetae iv maiorum volu-

proprie prophetae

minum
(Isaias, Ieremias, Daniel,
Ezechiel)
5. Pseudo-Gelasius decret. de libr. 6. Cassiodorius (de zust. Div. litt. 14).
Moysis v libri: Genesis
Genesis Exodus
Exodus Leviticus
Leviticus Numeri
Numeri Deuteronomium
Deuteronomium Iesu Nave
Iesu Naue Regum i—iv
Iudicum Paralipomenon i, ii
Ruth Psalterium

Regum i—iv

1 Of the canonicity of these two books Augustine speaks with some
reserve: ‘‘de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur...qui tamen
quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt inter propheticos numerandi
sunt.”

14—2

212

Item libri prophetarum numero xvi:

(Isaias, leremias, Ezechiel, Daniel,

Osee, Amos, Michas, Iohel,
Abdias, Ionas, Naum, Abacu,
Sofonias, Agaeus, Zacharias,
Maleachias)

Paralipomena i, il

Psalmorum cl

Salamonis libri 11]
(Proverbiorum, Ecclesiastes,

Canticum Canticorum)

Liber Sapientiae filii Siracis

Alius subsequens liber Sapientiae
Item historiarum:

lob

Tobias

Hester

Iudith

Macchabaeorum libri ii

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

Salomonis libri v
(Proverbia, Sapientia, Ecclesias-
ticus, Ecclesiastes, Canticum
canticorum)
Prophetae
(Isaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel, Da-
niel, Osee, Amos, Michaeas,
Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Naum,
Abbacuc, Sofonias, Aggaeus,
Zacharias, Malachias, qui et
Angelus)
Job
Tobi[as]
Esther
Tudith
Esdrae [libri] 11
Machabaeorum libri ii

a

7. Isidorus (de ord. libr. 5. scr).

I. Quinque libri Moyseos

2. Iesu Nave, Iudicum, Ruth

3. Regum i—iv, Paralipomenon i,
ii, Tobiae, Esther, Iudith,
Esdrae, Machabaeorum libri
duo

4. Prophetae: Psalmorum liber i,
Salomonis libri iii (Proverbi-
orum, Ecclesiastes, Cantica
Canticorum), Sapientia, Eccle-
siasticus, libri xvi Propheta-
rum

8. Mommsen’s List, cited by Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T, Kanons, ii. p. 143 f.; Sanday,
Studia Biblica, lil. p. 222f.; Preuschen, Analecta, p. 1381.

Libri canonici
Genesis versus IIIDCC
Exodus ver III
Numeri ver II]
Leviticus ver IICCC

Deuteronomium ver IIDCC
Hiesu Nave ver MDCCL
Iudicum Ver MDCCL

Fiunt libri vii Ver XVIIIC
Rut ver CCL

Regnorum liber i ver IICCC

1 The text of Preuschen has been followed;

Regnorum liber ii Ver IICC
Regnorum liber iii ver IIDL
Regnorum liber iv Ver IICCL
Fiunt versus VIIIID
Paralipomenon liber i Ver IIXL
liber ii Ver ITC

Machabeorum liber i ver IICCC

liber ii Ver MDCCC
Iob ver MDCC

Tobias ver DCCCC
Hester ver DCC

it is based on a St Gall

MS. which appears to be less ernie than the Cheltenham MS. used by

Mommsen and others.

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 213

Iudit ver MC
Psalmi Davitici cli ver V [CC
Salomonis ver VID Ezechiel ver IIICCCXL

Prophetae maiores ver XVCCCLXX Prophetae xii ver IIIDCCC
numero 111 Erunt omnes versus numero

Esaias ver IIIDLXXX LXVIIIID

Ieremias ver LIIICCCCL
Daniel ver MCCCL

το. Liber sacramentorum (Bobbio, cent.

tertius lib. ver. IIDC
quartus lib. ver. IICCCC
Psalmi Davitici ver. V

g. List in Cod. Claromontanus. vi, Vii).
Versus scribturarum sanctarum Liber Genesis
ita Genesis versus IIIID Exodum
Exodus versus IIIDCC ee
aS a umeri
Leviticum versus ILDCCC το ΩΝ
Numeri versus IIIDCL | Josue
Deuteronomium ver. IIICCC Judicum
fen Mauve vec. Ἢ Libri mulierum
: -- Ruth
Tudicum ver. II Flecter
Rud ver. CCL i
R Judith
per ter ee ws Maccabeorum libri duo
primus liber ver. IID Job
secundus lib. ver. II Thobias

Regum quattuor
Prophetarum libri xvi
Daviticum v
Solomonis iii

Proverbia ver. IDC Esdra i rie
Aeclesiastes DC Fiunt libri Veteris numero
Cantica canticorum CCC xl

Sapientia vers. 1
Sapientia IHU ver. IID

XII Profetae ver. IIICX
Ossee ver. DXXX
Amos ver. CCCCX
Micheas ver. CCCX
Ioel ver. XC
Abdias ver. LXX
Ionas ver. CL
Naum ver. CXL
Ambacum ver. CLX
Sophonias ver. CXL
Aggeus vers. CX
Zacharias ver. DCLX
Malachiel ver. CC

Eseias ver. IIIDC

Ieremias ver. IIIILXX

214 TLitles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

tr. Council of Carthage, a.D. 397 (can.
)

cob . 47 = 39)-
Ezechiel ver. IIIDC Genesis
Daniel ver. IDC pore
. eviticus

Maccabeorum sic. N :

: : --- umeri

lib. primus ver. IICCC Deuteronomium

lib. secundus ver. IICCC Tesu Naue

lib. quartus ver. I a ae

: = u
fad xem CCG Regnorum libri iv
Hesdra ID_ Paralipomenon libri ii
Ester ver. I Job |
Iob ver. IDC Psalterium Davidicum |

Tobias ver. I Salomonis libri v
xii libri Prophetarum

Iesaias
Ieremias |
Ezechiel
Daniel

Tobias

Iudith

Hester

Hesdrae libri ii

Machabaeorum libri ii

2. We may now proceed to consider the chief points
which these tables illustrate.

(1) THE TITLES OF THE Books. It will be seen that the
Hebrew titles fall into three classes. ‘They consist of either
(1) the first word or words of the book (Genesis—Deuteronomy,
Proverbs, Lamentations); or (2) the name of the hero or
supposed author (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah and
the other Prophets, Job, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra) ; or (3) a
description of the contents (Psalms, Song of Songs, Chronicles).
Titles of the second and third class are generally reproduced
in the Greek; there are some variations, as when Samuel
and Kings become ‘ Kingdoms,’ and ‘ Diaries’ (Ὁ 35 2)
is changed into ‘Omissions’ (IlapaAeuropeva'), but the system
of nomenclature is the same. But titles of the first class
disappear in the Greek, and in their place we find descriptive
names, suggested in almost every case by words in the ver- |

1 Or less correctly Παραλειπόμεναι, ‘omitted books,’ as in some lists.

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 215

sion itself. Thus Genests appears to come from Gen. ii. 4
αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, Exodus from Ex. xix. 1
τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, Numbers from
Num. i. 2 κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐξ ὀνόματος, Deuteronomy from Deut.
XVli. 18 γράψει αὑτῷ τὸ δευτερονόμιον τοῦτο εἰς βιβλίον', Eccle-
stastes from Eccl. 1. 1 ῥήματα ἐκκλησιαστοῦ.

The Greek titles are probably of Alexandrian origin and
pre-Christian use. Not only were they familiar to Origen (Eus.
HT. E. vi. 25), but they are used in Melito’s list, although it
came from Palestine. Some of them at least appear to have
been known to the writers of the New Testament; cf. Acts
ii. 30 ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμών, xill. 33 ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ τῷ δευτέρῳ, Rom.
ix. 25 ἐν τῷ Ὥσῆε λέγει. Philo® uses Γένεσις, "E€odos, Λευιτικὸν
or Λευιτικὴ βίβλος, Δευτερονόμιον, Βασιλεῖαι, Παροιμίαι, but his
practice is not quite constant; e.g. once or twice he calls
Exodus 7 “Egaywy7*; Deuteronomy is sometimes ἡ “Ezuvopis,
and Judges ἡ τῶν Kpidrwv® βίβλος. Similar titles occur in
the Mishna’, whether suggested by the Alexandrian Greek, or
independently coined by the Palestinian Jews ; thus Genesis is
ΠΡ ἼΒΌ, Numbers 88D Ὁ, Proverbs 7930 "Ὁ, Lamentations
nip.

Through the Old Latin version the Greek titles passed into
the Latin Bible’, and from the Latin Bible into the later ver-
sions of Western Christendom. In three instances, however,
the influence of Jerome restored the Hebrew titles; 1, 2 King-

1 On this rendering see Driver, Deuteronomy, p.i. The Massora calls
the book NVAI ΠῚ.

2 See also Acts xiii. 20, 33, Rom. x. 16, xv. 11, Heb. xi. 22.

3 See Prof. Ryle’s Philo and Holy Scripture, p. xx. ff.

4 De migr. Abr. 3, Quis rer. div. heres (ed. Wendland) 4. In the
former of these passages Philo ascribes this title to Moses. Yet étaywy7
does not like ἔξοδος occur in the Alexandrian version of the book.

5 Cf. the change from ΞΡ to Βασιλεῖαι.

6 See Ryle, Canon of the Ο. T., p- 294.

7 Sometimes in a simple transliteration, as Genesis ἄς. Tertullian has
Arithmi, but in Cyprian the Latin Mumeri is already used; see Burkitt,
O. L. and Itala, p. 4.

216 L2tles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

doms have become 1, 2 Samuel, and 3, 4 Kingdoms, 1, 2
Kings, whilst ‘Chronicles,’ representing the Hebrew 0°220°"737,
has taken the place of Paralipomenon.

Cf. Hieron. Pro/. Gal.: “tertius sequitur Samue/, quem nos
Regnorum primum et secundum dicimus; quartus JZalachim, id
est Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regnorum volumine continetur...
septimus Daére aiamim, id est ‘Verba dierum,’ quod significan-
tius Chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare.”

The Greek titles vary slightly in different codices and lists. |
Besides the variations of cod. A which appear in Table B (2),
the following are mentioned in the apparatus of Holmes and
Parsons. Joshua: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναυή, ὁ τοῦ Navn, Judges: Κριταὶ
τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, αἱ τῶν κριτῶν πράξεις. Chronicles: ἸΠαραλειπομένων
τῶν βασιλειῶν Ἰούδα. Psalms: Δαυὶδ προφήτου καὶ βασιλέως
μέλος. When Nehemiah is separated from Ezra its title is:
τὰ περὶ Νεεμίου or λόγοι N. υἱοῦ “Ayadia. A few further forms
may be gleaned from the patristic lists. As an alternative for
Παραλειπομένων the Apostolic Canons give τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν ἡμε-
ρῶν, while Ezra is known to Hilary as sermones dierum Esdrae.
The Psalter is sometimes βίβλος Vapor, liber Psalmorum, or
Ψαλτήριον Δαβιτικόν, Psalmt David regis, Psaltertum Davitt-
cum. For *Aopa ἀσμάτων we have occasionally ἃ ἄσματα ἀσμάτων
—a form rejected by Origen (ap. Eus. H.£. vi. 25 ov yap, os
ὑπολαμβάνουσί τινες, “Acpata ᾳσμάτων), but used by Pseudo-
Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and found in cod. A
and in several of the Latin lists!; cf. the English Article vI.
“Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.” The lesser Prophets are oi
δώδεκα or δεκαδύο, τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν pia βίβλος, τὸ δωδεκα-
πρόφητον, prophetae xiz; the greater, οἱ τέσσαρες, Prophetae ἔν,
prophetae tv matiorum voluminum, or simply mazores; when
the two collections are merged into one they become oi δεκαέξ
Or οἱ ἑκκαίδεκα, TO ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον, prophetae xvi.

(2) THE GROUPING OF THE Books. The methods of
grouping adopted in the Hebrew and Alexandrian Greek
Bibles differ not less widely than the nomenclature of the
books. The Hebrew canon is uniformly tripartite, and “the
books belonging to one division are never (by the Jews) trans-
ferred to another’.” Its three groups are known as the Law

1 The official Vulgate had Canticum, until the plural was adopted by

Sixtus V. ; see Nestle, ex /ubilium der Lat. Bibel, p. 18.
2 Driver, /ztrod., p. xxvii.

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 217

(77M), the Prophets (Ὁ 332), and the Writings (8°33N3),
The Massora recognised, however, certain subdivisions within
the second and third groups; the Prophets were classed
as Former (D'RWN), ie. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings ;
and Latter (Ὁ ΠΝ), and among the ‘Latter’ the Twelve
minor Prophets formed a single collection*. Similarly ‘the five

Rolls’ (nidar ), Le. Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamen-
tations, Esther, made a subsection among the Kethub-
im. The tripartite division of the canon was known at
Alexandria in the second century B.c., for the writer of the
prologue to Sirach refers to it more than once (1 f. τοῦ νόμου
καὶ TOV προφητῶν Kal τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων :
6 f. τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων:
14 f. ὃ νόμος καὶ ai προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων). It is
also recognised in the New Testament, where the Law and the
Prophets are mentioned as authoritative collections, and in one
passage the ‘ Writings’ are represented by the Psalter (Lc.
XXIV. 44 πάντα Ta γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσέως καὶ τοῖς
προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς). But the New Testament has no
comprehensive name for the third group, and even Josephus
(c. Ag. 1. 8) speaks of four poetical books (probably Psalms,
Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) as forming with the Law and
the Prophets the entire series of sacred books; the rest of
the Hagiographa seem to have been counted by him among
the Prophets*. At Alexandria the later books were probably
attached to the canon bya looser bond. ‘The writer of the
De vita contemplativa appears to recognise four groups® (ὃ 3
νόμους, καὶ λόγια θεσπισθέντα διὰ προφητῶν, Kai ὕμνους, καὶ τὰ
ἄλλα οἷς ἐπιστήμη καὶ εὐσέβεια συναύξονται καὶ τελειοῦνται).

Only the first of the three Palestinian groups remains undis-

1 So already in Sir. xlix. 10 τῶν 18’ προφητῶν.

2 See Ryle, Canon of the O.T., p. 165 f.

3 Unless we omit the comma after ὕμνους and regard ὕ. καὶ τὰ ἄλλα as
=the Hagiographa; cf. Joseph. c. Af. as quoted below, p. 220.

218 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

turbed’ in the Alexandrian Greek Bible, as it is preserved to us
in MSS. and described in Christian lists) When the Law was
translated into Greek, it was already a complete collection,
hedged round with special sanctions, and in all forms of the
Greek Bible it retains its precedence and has resisted any ex-
tensive intrusion of foreign matter. It is otherwise with the
Prophets and the Hagiographa. Neither of these groups
escaped decomposition when it passed into the Greek Bible.
The Former Prophets are usually separated from the Latter,
the poetical books coming between. The Hagiographa are
entirely broken up, the non-poetical books being divided
between the histories and the prophets. ‘This distribution is
‘clearly due to the characteristically Alexandrian desire to
arrange the books according to their literary character or
contents, or their supposed authorship. Histories were made
to consort with histories, prophetic and poetical writings with
others of their respective kinds. On this principle Daniel
is in all Greek codices and catalogues one of the Greater
Prophets, while Ruth attaches itself to Judges, and Canticles
to Ecclesiastes.

In many of the Greek patristic lists the Alexandrian
principle of grouping receives express recognition. Thus
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Leontius,
divide the books of the Old Testament into (1) historical
—12, including the Mosaic Pentateuch; (2) poetical—s ἢ
(3) prophetical—5. Epiphanius, followed by John of Da-
mascus, endeavours to combine this grouping with a system of
pentateuchs*—(r1) legal, (2) poetical, (3) historical*, (4) pro-

1 Yet even the Torah was not always kept apart in the Greek Bible, as
the names Octateuch and Heptateuch witness.

2 Dr Sanday (in Studia Libdlica, iii. p. 240) regards this as Palestinian,
identifying it with Cyril’s method. But Cyril begins with a dodecad
(δωδεκάτη ἡ ᾿Εσθήρ᾽ καὶ τὰ μὲν ᾿Ιστορικὰ ταῦτα).

9. The term γραφεῖα (3) 3} or ἁγιόγραφα is transferred to this group,

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 219

phetical—an end which he attains by relegating Ezra and
Esther to an appendix. Pseudo-Chrysostom’s arrangement is
similar, though slightly different in some of its details ;
according to his view the Bible began with an Octateuch, and
the στιχηρά are broken up, the Psalter being placed with the
Prophets, and the Salomonic books described as ‘hortatory’’
(τὸ συμβουλευτικόν). Even in the eccentric arrangement of
Junilius? the Greek method of grouping is clearly domi-
nant.

The relative order of the groups in the Greek Bible, being
of literary and not historical origin, is to some extent liable
to variation. The ‘five books of Moses’ always claim
precedence, and the ‘rest of the histories’ follow, but the
position of the poetical and prophetical books is less certain.
Codex B places the poetical books first, whilst in Codd. κα and
A the prophets precede. But the order of cod. B is supported
by the great majority of authorities both Eastern and Western
(Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius (1, 3), Gregory,
Amphilochius, the Laodicene and ‘Apostolic’ canons, N1-
cephorus, Pseudo-Chrysostom, the Cheltenham list, the
African canons of 397, and Augustine). Two reasons may
have combined to favour this arrangement. ‘ David’ and
‘Solomon’ were higher up the stream of time than Hosea
and Isaiah. Moreover, it may have seemed fitting that the
Prophets should immediately precede the Evangelists.

(3) THE NuMBER OF THE Books. In our printed Hebrew
Bibles the books of the Old Testament are 39 (Law, 5;
Former Prophets (Joshua—z Kings), 6; Latter Prophets, 15 ;
Hagiographa, 13). But Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, and

1 So Leontius (τὰ παραινετικά), but he classed the Psalter among

them.
2 See Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsuestia τε. Funilius, p. 356 f.

220 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

Chronicles’, were originally single books’, and the Minor Pro-
phets were also counted as a single book. Thus the number
is reduced to 24 (Law, 5; Former Prophets, 4; Latter Pro-
phets, 4; Hagiographa, 11), and this answers to the prevalent
Jewish tradition. On the other hand Josephus expressly limits
the books to 22 (Law, 5; Prophets, 13; Hymns and moral
pieces, 4). He has probably included the historical Hagio-
grapha among the Prophets, and treated Ruth and Lamenta-
tions as appendices to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.

Both traditions were inherited by the Church, but the latter
was predominant, especially in the East. In some lists indeed
the twenty-two books became twenty-seven, the ‘double books’
being broken up into their parts (Epiph. 1)*; in some a similar
treatment of the Dodecapropheton raised the number to 34
(the ‘Sixty Books’), and there are other eccentricities of nume-
ration which need not be mentioned here.

Josephus, c. AP. 1. 8: οὐ μυριάδες βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀσυμ-
φώνων καὶ μαχομένων, δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία... καὶ
τούτων πέντε μέν ἐστι Μωυσέως... οἱ μετὰ Μωυσῆν προφῆται...συνέ-
γραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις: αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς
τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. He
is followed by Origen ap. Eus. /.c. ovk ἀγνοητέον δ᾽ εἶναι τὰς
ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, ὅσος 6 ἀριθμὸς
τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν: and Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33
ἀναγίνωσκε πὰς θείας γραφάς, Tas εἴκοσι δύο βίβλους τῆς παλαιᾶς
διαθήκης. Similarly Athanasius, ef. fest. 39 (Migne, P.G. xxvi.
col. 1437). When another numeration was adopted, efforts were

1 Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah appears to have been originally a single
book. But while Ezra and Nehemiah are still joined in the Greek Bible,
Chronicles stands by itself both in ##1 and Gi, and in f¥1 it follows Nehe-
miah and forms the last book of the Canon (cf. Mt. xxiii. 35, and see
Barnes, Chronicles, in the Cambridge Bible, pp. x.—xiii.).

2 The division probably began in the Lxx.

3 Jerome, Pro/. Gal.: ‘‘quinque a plerisque libri duplices aestimantur.”’
As the twenty-two books answered to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew
alphabet, so these ‘double books’ were thought to correspond to the
‘double letters,’ i.e. those which had two forms (δ, 5, 3, 9, 5). The
‘double books’ were not always identical in different lists; see Sanday,

op. cit. Pp. 239.

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 221

made to shew that it did not involve a real departure from the
canon of twenty-two; cf. Epiph. Zaer. 1. 1. 8, αὗταί εἰσιν ai εἴκοσι
ἑπτὰ βίβλοι ai ἐκ θεοῦ δοθεῖσαι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, εἴκοσι δύο δὲ ws τὰ
παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς στοιχεῖα τῶν Ἑβραικῶν γραμμάτων ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ
διπλοῦσθαι δέκα βίβλους εἰς πέντε λεγομένας" Aial. Tim. et Ag.
(ed. Conybeare, p. 66), αὗται αἱ βίβλοι αἱ θεόπνευστοι καὶ ἐνδιάθε-
τοι, KS μὲν οὖσαι, KB δὲ ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ...ἐξ αὐτῶν διπλοῦσθαι.

On the other hand the numeration in 4 Esdr. xiv. 44 rests, if
nongentt guatuor be the true reading, on a tradition which
makes the Hebrew books 24. This tradition is supported by
the testimony of the Talmud and the Rabbinical literature!, and
the Canon is known in Jewish writings by the name OSD 5,
“the Twenty-Four Books.” It finds a place in certain Western
Christian writers, e.g. Victorinus of Petau comm. in Apoc.: “sunt
autem libri V.T. qui accipiuntur viginti quatuor quos in epitome
Theodori invenies?.” Victorinus compares the 24 books to the
24 Elders of Apoc. iv., and the same fancy finds a place in the
Cheltenham list (“ut in apocalypsi Iohannis dictum est Vidz
XXIIII seniores mittentes coronas suas ante thronum, maiores
nostri probant hoc libros esse canonicos”). Jerome knows both
traditions, though he favours the former (Pro. Gad. ‘““quomodo
igitur viginti duo elementa sunt...ita viginti duo volumina sup-
putantur,..quaamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagio-
grapha scriptitent et libros hos in suo putent numero supputan-
dos et per hoc esse priscae legis libros viginti quatuor”).

Let us now turn to the ecclesiastical lists and see how far
the Hebrew Canon was maintained.

Our earliest Christian list was obtained from Palestine’,
and probably represents the contents of the Palestinian Greek
Bible. It is an attempt to answer the question, What is the
true number and order of the books of the Old Testament?
Both the titles and the grouping are obviously Greek, but the
books are exclusively those of the Hebrew canon. Esther
does not appear, but the number of the books is twenty-two, if
we are intended to count 1—4 Regn. as two.

1 Cf. Ryle, Canon, pp. 157 f., 222, 292; Sanday, of. czt. p. 236 ff.

2 Zahn offers a suggestion, to which Sanday inclines, that the writer
refers to the Axcerpta ex Theodoto which are partly preserved in the works
of Clement of Alexandria.

3 Melito ag. Eus. H.£. iv. 26 ἐπειδὴ μαθεῖν τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων
ἐβουλήθης ἀκρίβειαν, πόσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὁποῖα τὴν τάξιν εἴἶεν.. «ἀνελθὼν εἰς
τὴν ἀνατολὴν καὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη καὶ ἐπράχθη... ἔπεμψά σοι.

222 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

The next list comes from Origen. It belongs to his com-
mentary on the first Psalm, which was written at Alexandria’,
i.e. before A.D. 231. The books included in it are expressly
said to be the twenty-two of the Hebrew canon (εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ εἴκοσι
δύο βίβλοι καθ᾽ Ἕ βραίους aide). Yet among them are the first
book of Esdras? and the Epistle of Jeremiah, which the Jews
never recognised. With the addition of Baruch, Origen’s list
is repeated by Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius (1), and in the
Laodicean canon; Amphilochius mentions two books of
Esdras, and it is at least possible that the Esdras of Gregory
of Nazianzus is intended to include both books, and that the
Epistle, or Baruch and the Epistle, are to be understood as
forming part of Jeremiah in the lists both of Gregory and
Amphilochius. Thus it appears that an expansion of the
Hebrew canon, which involved no addition to the number of
the books, was predominant in the East during the fourth
century.

The Eastern lists contain other books, but they are
definitely placed outside the Canon. This practice seems to
have begun with Origen, who after enumerating the twenty-
two books adds, ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά. Athanasius
takes up the expression, but names other books—the two
Wisdoms, Esther*, Judith, and Tobit*. Palestine was perhaps
naturally conservative in this matter; Cyril will not allow his
catechumens to go beyond the Canon, and Epiphanius men-
tions only, and that with some hesitation, the two books of
Wisdom (εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς βίβλοι ἐν ἀμφιλέκτῳ"...

4 Eus. H.£. vi. 24.

2 Already cited freely by Josephus as an authority for the history of the
period. Origen, it should be added, regards 1, 2 Esdras asa single volume
(Ἔσδρας πρώτη, δευτέρα ἐν ἑνί).

3 Cf. Melito’s omission of Esther, and the note appended to the list of
Amphilochius.

4 The N.T. members of the same class are the Teaching and the

Shepherd.
5 Haer. 1. i. I.

d

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 223

αὗται χρήσιμοι μέν εἰσι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἀριθμὸν ῥητῶν
οὐκ ἀναφέρονται). And this was the prevalent attitude of the
East even at a later time. There are exceptions; Pseudo-
Chrysostom places Sirach among the Hortatory books of the
canon; the Apostolic canons, while excluding Sirach, include
three books of Maccabees. But John of Damascus reflects
the general opinion of the Greek fathers when, while reckon-
ing both books of Esdras” as canonical, he repeats the verdict
of Epiphanius upon the two Wisdoms, Βνάρετοι μὲν καὶ Kadai,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀριθμοῦνται.

On the other hand the West, further from the home of the
Hebrew canon, and knowing the Old Testament chiefly
through the Latin version of the Lxx., did not scruple to
mingle non-canonical books with the canonical. Hilary and
Ruffinus* were doubtless checked, the one by the influence of
Eastern theologians, the other by the scholarship of Jerome ;
but Hilary mentions that there were those who wished to
raise the number of the canonical books to twenty-four by
including Tobit and Judith in the canon. From the end of
the fourth century the inclusion of the non-canonical books in
Western lists is a matter of course. Even Augustine has no
scruples on the subject; he makes the books of the Old
Testament forty-four (de doctr. Chr. i. 13 “his xliv libris
Testamenti Veteris terminatur auctoritas®”), and among them
Tobit, Judith, and two books of Maccabees take rank with
the histories; and the two Wisdoms, although he confesses that
they were not the work of Solomon, are classed with the

1 De mens. et pond. 4.

* Like Origen, he explains that they form together but a single book
(rod "Ἔσδρα ai δύο εἰς μίαν συναπτόμεναι βίβλον).

3 The non-canonical books (τὰ ἔξω) are however carefully distinguished
from real afocrypha when the latter are mentioned; e.g. in the sticho-
metry of Nicephorus, and in the list of the ‘Sixty Books.’

4 Jn symb. 38 ‘‘alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maiori-
bus appellati sunt.”

Bite ACUrOCLAlls 4.

224 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

Prophets. His judgement was that of his Church (Conc.
Carth. 111. caz. xlvil. ‘‘ sunt canonicae scripturae Salomonis libri
quinque... Tobias, Judith... Machabaeorum libri duo”). The
African Church had probably never known any other canon,
and its belief prevailed wherever the Latin Bible was read.
There can be little doubt that, notwithstanding the strict
adherence of the Eastern lists to the number of the Hebrew
books, the Old Latin canon truly represents the collection of
Greek sacred books which came into the hands of the early
Christian communities at Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome.
When Origen and the Greek fathers who follow him fix the
number of the books at twenty-two or twenty-four, they follow,
not the earlier tradition of the Church, but the corrected esti-
mate of Christian scholars who had learned it from Jewish
teachers. An earlier tradition is represented by the lne of
Christian writers, beginning with Clement of Rome, who
quoted the ‘Apocryphal’ books apparently without suspecting
that they were not part of the Canon. Thus Clement of
Rome’ places the story of Judith side by side with that of
Esther ; the Wisdom of Sirach is cited by Barnabas? and
the Didache*®, and Tobit by Polycarp*; Clement of Alex-
andria® and Origen appeal to Tobit and both the Wisdoms,
to which Origen adds Judith®. Our earliest MSS. of the
Greek Bible confirm the impression derived from the quota-
tions of the earliest Christian writers. Their canon corre-
sponds not with that of the great writers of the age when they
were written, but with that of the Old Latin version of the
Lxx. Codd. B x A contain the two Wisdoms, Tobit, and
Judith ; 1—2 Maccabees are added in ἐδ, and 1—4 Macca-
bees in A; cod. C still exhibits the two Wisdoms, and when
complete may have contained other books of the same class.
1.1 Cor, 55. 2 Ce IQs) Qe 8 ἀνα

4 Philipp. το. 5 Strom. i. 10, V. 14.
6 Cf. Westcott in D.C.B. iv. p. 130.

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 225

Moreover, the position of the books shews that the scribes
of these MSS. or of their archetypes lacked either the power
or the will to distinguish them from the books of the Hebrew
canon. In the light of the facts already produced, it is clear
that the presence of the non-canonical books in Greek Bibles
cannot be attributed to the skilled writers of the fourth and
fifth centuries. ‘They have but perpetuated an older tradition
—a tradition probably inherited from the Alexandrian Jews.

An explanation of the early mixture of non-canonical
books with canonical may be found in the form under which
the Greek Bible passed into the keeping of the Church.
In the first century the material used for literary purposes
was still almost exclusively papyrus, and the form was
that of the roll’. But rolls of papyrus seldom contained
more than a single work, and writings of any length, espe-
cially if divided into books, were often transcribed into two or
more separate rolls*. The rolls were kept in boxes (κιβωτοί,
κίσται, capsae, cistae)*, which served not only to preserve them,
but to collect them in sets. Now while the sanctity of the five
books of Moses would protect the czstae which contained them
from the intrusion of foreign rolls, no scruple of this kind
would deter the owner of a roll of Esther from placing it in
the same box with Judith and Tobit; the Wisdoms in like
manner naturally found their way into a Salomonic collection ;
while in a still larger number of instances the two Greek
recensions of Esdras consorted together, and Baruch and
the Epistle seemed rightly to claim a place with the roll of
Jeremiah. Morerarely such a writing as the Psalms of Solomon
may have found its way into the company of kindred books of
the canon. It is not a serious objection to this hypothesis

1 See Kenyon, Palacography of Greek papyri, pp. 24, 113 ff.

* Jb. p. 122: ‘no papyrus roll of Homer hitherto discovered contains
more than two books of the Iliad. Three short orations fill the largest roll

of Hyperides.”
3 E. M. Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 57.

Θ᾿ ὦ, 15

226 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

that Philo does not quote the Apocrypha, and has no certain
allusion to it’. A great scholar would not be deceived by the
mixture of heterogeneous rolls, which might nevertheless
seriously mislead ordinary readers, and start a false tradition.
in an unlettered community such as the Christian society of
the first century.

(4) THE INTERNAL ORDER OF THE Groups. Even in
Jewish lists of the Hebrew Canon there are variations in the
internal order of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. The
‘Great Prophets’ occur in each of the three orders (1) Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel; (2) Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah; (3) Jere-
miah, Isaiah, Ezekiel’. The order of the Hagiographa varies
more extensively. In the printed Bibles they are arranged in
three subdivisions: (1) Psalms, Proverbs, Job ; (2) Canticles,
Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther (the five Megilloth) ;
(3) Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles. The Talmudic order is as
follows: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles. The MSS. vary,
many agreeing with the printed Bibles ; others, especially those
of Spanish provenance, following the order : Chronicles, Psalms,
Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations,
Esther, Daniel, Ezra’.

In the lists of the Greek Bible and the sequence of its
MSS. the Law and the ‘Former Prophets’ generally retain
their Hebrew order, with the noteworthy exception that Ruth
is always attached to Judges. But there are also minor excep-
tions which are of some interest. Even in the Pentateuch
Melito, Leontius, and the Cheltenham list reverse the common
order of Leviticus and Numbers*. The sequence is broken in
some lists after Ruth (Laod., Epiph. 1), or even after Joshua

* Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. Xxxiii.
2 See Ryle, Canon, p. 225 ff.

3 Ryle, 26., pp. 229 ff., 281 ἢ
4 On this see Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 241.

—— eee ee eee

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 227

(Epiph. 3’) or Deuteronomy (Epiph. 2). Occasionally
Chronicles, which is an intruder from the Hagiographa, pre-
cedes 1—4 Regn. (Epiph. 2, Deal. Tim. et Ag.), or drops
out altogether (Ps.-Chrys., Junilius, Cod. Clarom.). All
these disturbances of the normal order may be ascribed to
local or individual influences, and find no support in the
uncial MSS. of the Greek Bible. But it is otherwise when we
come to the ‘Latter Prophets’ and the Hagiographa. With
regard to the Prophets, three questions of order arise.
(1) There is the relative order of the Twelve and the Four.
In the majority of patristic lists the Twelve precede (Ath.,
Cyr., Epiph., Greg., Amph., &c.), and this is also the order
of Codd. A, B, N-V. But Cod. & begins with the Four, and
it 1s supported by other authorities, chiefly Western (Ruff,
Chelt., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Nicephorus); whilst in a
few the subdivisions are mixed (Melito, Junilius, Ebedjesu’).
(2) The internal order of the δωδεκαπρόφητον in most of the
MSS. and catalogues*® where it is stated differs from the
Hebrew order in regard to the relative positions of the pro-
phets in the first half of the group; the Hebrew order being
Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, but the Greek,
Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. The dominant
Greek order may perhaps be due to “δὴ attempt to secure
greater accuracy in the chronological arrangement*.” (3) The

1 Ruth is attached to 1 Regn. in the Cheltenham list, and Augustine
inclines to this arrangement (see Sanday, /.c., p. 242). The result was to
create a Heptateuch; for the word cf. J. E. B. Mayor, The Latin Hepta-
teuch, p. xxxvi. R. Peiper’s text of the Heptateuchos, to which Prof.
Mayor refers (p. xxxiv.), appeared in the Vienna Corpus ser. eccl. lat. vol.
xxill. (1895).

2 For statements by early Mohammedan writers as to the extent of the
Jewish and Christian Canons see Margoliouth in Z.xp. Times, Nov. 1899,

s OF:
3 The chief exceptions are: Cod. v, Hosea, Amos, Joel, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah; Greg. Naz. and Cod. Barocc., Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel,
Jonah, Obadiah; Junilius, Ebedjesu, Augustine, the Hebrew order.
4 Ryle, Canon, p. 229. |

I5—2

228 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

Greek order of the Greater Prophets follows the oldest Hebrew
tradition (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), but it appends Lamenta-
tions to Jeremiah, and enlarges the group by placing Daniel
either before (Melito, Origen, Hilary, Chelt., Augustine), or,
more usually, after Ezekiel.

The relative order of the Hagiographa in the Lxx. 15 more
perplexing. For Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel we have
already accounted; there remain Chronicles, Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, and Ezra. Chroni-
cles, in accordance with the theory enshrined in its Greek
name, usually follows Kings. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, for the most part hold together in that order, as a
group of poetical books; but there are many exceptions.
‘David’ sometimes goes with the Prophets (Ps.-Chrys., Juni- ὖ
lius, Augustine, Isidorus), and the group is then regarded as
‘Salomonic,’ or ‘hortatory.’ Lists which admit the two books
of Wisdom usually join them to this subdivision (Ebedjesu,
Carth., Augustine, Innocent, Cod. Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius,
Cassiodorius, Isidorus). The internal order of the Salomonic
books varies (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles ; Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Proverbs; Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes); the
Wisdoms usually follow, but sometimes break the sequence
of the three canonical books. Much difficulty seems to have
been felt as to the place of Job; the book normally appears
in connexion with the poetical books, either last or first,
but it is sometimes placed among the histories (Augustine,
Innocent, Cod. Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius), or after
the Prophets (Origen). The position of Esdras is not less
uncertain ; its normal place is after Chronicles, but it is
also found before or after the Prophets (Melito, Epiph.,
John of Damascus, Cod. Barocc.), or in connexion with a
group of the apocryphal histories (cod. A, Carth., Augustine,
&c.). Esther is still more erratic; sometimes it follows
the poetical books, sometimes the Prophets, sometimes the

Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books. 229

histories ; not a few lists place it among the antilegomena,
or omit it altogether. When admitted to a place in the
Canon, it is usually to be found at or near the end (Origen,
Epiphanius, Amphilochius, John of Damascus, Hilary, Carth.,
Cod. Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius), and in company with
apocryphal books, especially Judith’ and Tobit (codd. BxA,
Chelt., Carth., Augustine, and the later Latin lists’). It seems
as if the doubt which the Jewish authorities felt with regard
to this book was inherited by many Christians. On the other
hand Cyril, who represents the tradition of the Church of
Jerusalem, makes it the twelfth of the canonical books, and in,
the Laodicene list it stands eighth.

Except in cases where an old or well-defined tradition fixed
the internal order of groups of books, there was clearly room
for every possible variation so long as the books were written
on separate rolls. The csta might serve to keep a group
together, but it offered no means of fixing the relative order
of its contents. In the codex, on the other hand, when it
contained more than one writing, the order was necessarily
fixed®, and the scribe unconsciously created a tradition which
was followed by later copyists. The ‘transition to vellum,’
and the consequent transition from the roll to the codex,
does not seem to have been general before the fourth century,
although in the case of Biblical MSS. it may have begun a
century earlier*; and thus we may regard our earliest uncial
codices as prototypes of the variations in order which mark
the mass of later MSS. A single instance may suffice. It
has been stated that Esther is frequently found in company

1 The proximity of Esther to Judith in many lists is perhaps due to the
circumstance that in both books the central figure is a woman; cf. p. 213
(right-hand column).

2 Cf. Ryle, Canon, p. 199 ff. ‘

3 Cf. Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii. p. 233 ff.

4 See Kenyon, Palacography of papyri, p. 119 f.; Sanday, 7.c. Papyrus
was freely used for codices in Egypt during the third century; cf. Grenfell
and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. p. 2.

230 Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of Books.

with Judith and Tobit. But these books occur in varying
order in the oldest MSS.; in B we have Esther, Judith, Tobit,
but in καὶ A, Esther, Tobit, Judith; a favourite Western order
is Tobit, Esther, Judith (Chelt., Augustine, Innocent, Gelasius,
Cassiodorius, Isidorus); another, sanctioned at. Carthage in
397, is apparently more common in MSS. of the Vulgate, viz.,
Tobit, Judith, Esther’. Such variations, resting on no obvious
principle, are doubtless ultimately due to the judgement or
caprice of a few scribes, whose copies supplied the archetypes
of the later Greek MSS. and the daughter-versions of the
Septuagint.

LITERATURE. On the general subject of this chapter the
student may consult C. A. Credner, Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons (ed.
Volkmar, Berlin, 1860); Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons, ii.,
p. 143 ff. (Erlangen, 1890); Β. F. Westcott, Hzst. of the Canon of
the N.T.6 (Cambridge, 1891); W. Sanday, Zhe Cheltenham List,
in Studia Biblica, iii., pp. 226—243 (Oxford, 1891); Buhl,
Kanon u. Text des A.T. (Leipzig, 1891); H. E. Ryle, Canon of
the O.T. (London, 1892).

1 For the order of the books in Latin MS. Bibles see S, Berger, A7s-
totre de la Vulgate, pp. 301-6, 331-9.

ee μιν. «ἡ

CHAP TER. ΠΕ:

BOOKS OF THE HEBREW CANON.

THE books which are common to the Hebrew Bible and
the Alexandrian Version’ differ in regard to their contents as
well as in their titles and order. Differences of contents may
conveniently be considered under two heads, as they affect the
sequence or the subject-matter.

(A) DIFFERENCES OF SEQUENCE.

1. The foilowing table shews the principal instances in
which the Greek and the Hebrew books are at variance in
reference to the order of the contents. The chapters and
verses in the left-hand column are those of the Cambridge
Septuagint ; the nght-hand column follows the numeration of
the printed Hebrew Bibles.

GREEK. HEBREW.
Gen, xxxi. 46>—52 Gen: xe 285. ΔΝ ΕΙ, 52. 28".
49, 50%, 52°
» XXXV. 16—21 » XXXv. 16+21, 17—20, 22?
Exod. xx. 13—I5 Exod. xx, 14; 15,13
» ΦΧΧχν. ὅ--:1, 12, 15—16, 9, XXXV. Q—I2, 17, 13—I4,
17, 18, τοῦ 16, 19, 15

1 Following the order of Zhe Old Testament in Greek, these are Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1—4
Kingdoms (vol. i.), r—2 Paralipomena, 2 Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle-
siastes, Canticles, Job, Esther (vol. ii.), the Twelve Minor Prophets, the
Four Greater Prophets (vol. iii.)—37 in all.

232 Books of the Hebrew Canon.
GREEK. HEBREW.
Exod. xxxvi. 8>— 40 Exod. xxxix. I—3I
95 XXXVii. I—2 " =XXxXvi. 8—9g
2) 3) 8—6 ” ” fe oe “3325.
“5 " 7---2Ὶ » ἜΧΧνΠ] 9Q—23
- ΟΧΧΕΝΠΠΠ 1 17 »» ΧΧΧΥΙ͂Ι. I—24
δ » [1ὃ--20 .) XXXV1. 20—34
2I—24 "9 ΧΧΧΥΝΠΙ. I—7
” » 25 » ΧΧΧΥΙ͂Ι. 29
" 5» 26 iy yt AI. ὃ
» Seine? » xl. 30—32
9» XXXIx. I—IO 99 XXXVI1L. 24—3I
3 jeer A ἜΧΕΙΝ 99
»” ν).., 135-23 » » 33-43
5 Xl. 6°—8, 10—25, 26, 27 » ΧΙ. 8—10, 12—27, 29, 33,
—32 38
Num. i. 24—37 Num. 1. 26—37, 24—25
» Vi. 22—26 9. Vi. 22, 23,27, ΖΝ ΠΡ Δ
9) XXVi. I15—47 » XXVi. 109-27, 15—18, 44—
AT, 28—43
Josh. ix. 3—33 Josh. vill. 30—33, 1x. 3—27
9 XIX. 47—48 2) XIX, 48, 47

3 Reon. 1v. 17; Fo, τὸ

3)

3)

» 20—2I, 22—24
25—30

v. I—I16, 17

vl. 2—3

vi. 4—5, -- ἜΝ: 8, 9—I5,
_16—34

5 26—29
30
)» 91 ς 259
xi. 3—8
x. ΧΙ
Psalms i 1X. 22—39
X.—Cxll
cxlil. I—8
cxlil. Q—12
Cxiv
CXV
cxvi.—cxlvi
cxlvil. I—9

I Kings iv. 18, 19, 17

” 2) ae 2—4, 9—I4

” V. 152239 ga?

hs Laer

» . Vie. 37—38,, 2 ΤῊΝ
—I0, I15—36

vil. 13—18, 21,
23—24, 26, 25
vill. 27—51I, I—I2
ΙΧ. 15, I7—19, 20—22
x. 23—26
3 Waa" :
” X. 27—29
” ΧΙ. 4, 35 7) 5, ὃ) 6
EX1. XX
Psalms x. I—18
9 ΧΙ. ΟΧΗΙ

3)

» ~cxiv. I—8

9 -CXV. I—4

"τ ΌΧΥ]..1-Ὁ

» Οδχνὶ. 10--1

"»" CXVii.—cxlvil. 11
" Cxlvili, 12—20

I 9Q—20,

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 233

GREEK.

Prov. xv. 27°—xvi. 4, 6, 9

99

2)

xx. 105-12, 13°—16, 17
yk
xxiv. 24—37, 38—49, 50—
68, 69—77, xxix. 28—
49
Jer. xxv. 14—19
ΧΧΥ I
55 2--2ὃ
XXVII
XXVIil
ΧΧΙΧ. I—7
” 8—23

”

ΤΕΣ: Vil.

divergence.

Xxx. I—5, 6—II, 12—27

XXX1

XXXI1.

XXXUl

ΧΧΧΙν. I-18

XXXV

XXXV1

XXXV11

XXXVIll. I—34, 35—37, 38—
40

ἘΧΧΙ͂Χ

xl

xli

xlil

xlili

xliv

xlv

xlvi

xlvii

xlvili

xlix

]
i. 1305-31-35
3.9

I—24

HEBREW.

Prov. xvi. 6, xv. 28, xvl. 7, xv 29

2)

ise

Xvi. 8—9, XV. 30—33?
1. 5, 4
XX. 20—22, IO—1I3, 23—
30
XXx. I—I4, xxlv. 23—34,

XXX. 1533, ΧΧΧΙ. I—9, IO

xlix. 34°—39

93 30°

xlvi. 2—28

]

li

xlvii.

ΠΧ.

" _ 1—5, 28 —33, 23-27

xlviii

χχν. 15—38

XXV1

XXV1l. 2—22

XXVill

XX1X

XXX

XXX1. I—34, 37, 35, 36, 38—
40

XXXl1

XXXlll

XXX1V

XXXV

XXXV1

XXXVIl

XXXVII1

ei,

————
“as

xliv. I—30, xlv. I—5

Ezek. vii. 6—9, 3—5

2. Each of these contexts must be separately examined
with the view of discovering the extent and the cause of the

This can be done but briefly here; for further

234 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.

particulars the student is referred to the commentaries which
deal with the several books.

In the following pages @= the Greek text, and 65." ® =the
Greek text as given in cod. A, cod. B, or as the case may be;
f§4i=the Massoretic text as printed in the Hebrew Bibles.

GEN. xxxi. 46 ff. The passage is in some confusion ;
“ov. 45, 47, 5I—54 appear to embody E’s account...vv. 46,
48—5o the account given by J.” J# is loosely put together,
and v. 50°, which & omits, is hardly consistent with vz. 48,
52. In (ἃ the materials seem to have been re-arranged with
the view of giving greater consistency to the narrative.

GEN. xxxv. 16 ff. The transposition in & appears to be
due to a desire to locate Eder (Γάδερ) between Bethel and
Bethlehem ; see art. EDER in Hastings’ D. B. (i. p. 644).

Exop. xx.13—15. (ἃ and {# represent here two distinct
traditions with regard to the order of the Decalogue. For the
order followed by &® see Le. xvill. 20, Rom. ΧΙ]. 9, Jas. ii. 11,
Philo de x. orac. 10, de spec. legg. iil. 2; that of GAF PA is
supported by Mt., Mc., and Josephus. In Deut. v. 17—19
cod. B wavers between the two, but cod. A consistently agrees
with {#H.

Exop. xxxv.—xl. is “the sequel to c. xxv.—xxx1., relating
the execution of the instructions there communicated to
Moses,” the correspondence being so close that ‘‘in the main,
the narrative is repeated verbatim—with the single substitution
of past tenses for future’.” But whilst in c. xxv. ff. the Lxx.
generally follows the Massoretic order, in the corresponding
sections at the end of the book “extraordinary variations occur
in the Greek, some verses being omitted altogether, while
others are transposed and knocked about with a freedom
very unlike the usual manner of the translators of the Penta-

teuch*.”
1 Driver, Jztr. p. 15.
2 Driver, /nir. pp. 37, 38.
3 Robertson Smith, O. 7. zz the J. Ch. p. 124 f.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 235

The passage deals with the building and furniture of the
Tabernacle, and the attire of the Priesthood. The following
rough table will enable the student to see how the details

are arranged in the Lxx. and Heb. severally.

G

Ornaments of the Ministers.
Ephod (xxxvi. 9—I2).
Onyx stones (xxxvl. I13—1I4).
Breastplate (xxxvil. I15—29).
Robe of Ephod (xxxvi. 30—34).
Linen vestments (xxxvi. 35—37).
Crown plate (xxxvi. 38—40).

Structure of the Tabernacle
and Court.
Hangings (xxxvii. I—2).
Veils (xxxvii. 3—6).
Court (xxxvil. 7—18).

Furniture of the Tabernacle, &c.

Ark (xxxvili. I—8).

Table (xxxvili. g—1I2).

Candlestick (xxxvill. I13—17).

Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii.
22—24).

Oil and Incense (xxxvili. 25—
26).

Laver (xxxvill. 27).

fA

Structure of the Tabernacle.
Hangings (xxxvi. 8—19).
Boards (xxxvi. 20—34).

Veils (xxxvi. 35—38).

Furniture of the Tabernacle
and tts Court.

Ark (xxxvii. I—9).

Table (xxxvii. 1o—16).

Candlestick (xxxvil. 17—24).

Altar of incense (xxxvii. 25—-29).

Altar of Burnt-offering (xxxviii.

i=).
Laver (xxxvill. 8).
Court (xxxvilil. 9—20).

Ornaments of the Ministers.
Ephod (xxxix. 2—5).
Onyx stones (xxxix. 6—7).
Breastplate (xxxix. 8—21I).
Robe of the Ephod (xxxix, 22—
26).
Linen vestments (xxxix. 27—29).
Crown plate (xxxix. 30—3!).

It is clear from this comparison that both (ἃ and {# follow

a system, ie. that the difference of sequence is due to a
deliberate rearrangement of the groups. Either the Alexandrian
translator has purposely changed their relative order, giving
precedence to the ornaments of the priesthood which are
subordinated in the M. T. of cc. xxxv.—xl., as well as in both
texts of cc. xxv.—xxx.; or he had before him in c. xxxv. ff.
another Hebrew text in which the present Greek order was
observed. Many O.T. scholars (e.g. Kuenen, Wellhausen,
Dillmann) regard cc. xxxv.—xl. as belonging to a “secondary

236 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

and posterior stratum of P’.” Thus it is permissible to sup-
pose that the Hebrew text before the original translators of
Exodus did not contain this section, and that it was supplied
afterwards from a longer Hebrew recension of the book in
which the last six chapters had not yet reached their final
form. ‘That the translation of these chapters was not made
by the same hand as the rest of Exodus has been gathered
from the fact that the Hebrew technical terms which are
common to xxv.—xxx. and xxxv.—xl. are in certain cases
differently rendered in the two contexts’.

NUMBERS i. 24 ff., xxvi. 15 ff. Each of these passages
contains a census of the tribes, and in each the order of the
tribes is slightly different in & and {#. In both lists #1 places
Gad third, and Asher eleventh; whereas according to & Gad
is ninth in the first of the two lists, and sixth in the second,
and in the second Asher is seventh. The effect of the
sequence presented by G is to bring Gad into close proximity
to Asher, a position which this tribe occupies in i. 5—15 (G@&
and {#). For this there may have been genealogical reasons ;
see Gen. xxx. 10-ff, ,.xlIx.,19,

C. vi. 22 ff. Here #4 obviously has the simpler and more
natural order, and λέγοντες αὐτοῖς at the end of v. 23 seems to
shew that the Greek order, though supported by BAw*, is the
result of an early accidental displacement in the Greek text.

Josuua ix. 3 ff. In the present Hebrew text the ceremony
at Ebal and Gerizim follows immediately upon the taking of
Ai, but in G it is separated from the latter incident by the
hostile gathering of the western kings (ix. 1, 2) and placed
immediately before the story of the Gibeonites. 1 “involves
a geographical difficulty, for Ebal lies considerably to the north

1 See Driver, Zutr. pp. 35, 39; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, ii.
p. 276%":
* Robertson Smith, O. 7. im the J. Ch. p. 125.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 237

of Ai, and until the intervening territory was conquered...it is
difficult to understand how Joshua could have advanced
thither’.” The situation however is scarcely improved if we
adopt the order of G, unless the gathering of the kings is
taken to imply a further victory on the Israelite side which
opened the way to central Palestine. Dillmann suggests that
ix. 2 was once followed by the details of a battle. If so, it is
possible that (ἃ still preserves the original order, though in
common with {ΠΕ it has lost this record.

C. xix. 47—-48. On these verses, which exchange places
in the Greek, see under (B) *. |

3 REGN. iv. 17 ff.

The change of order in vv. 17—19 needs no discussion ;
the transposition may be due to an accident of transcription in
the archetype of Cod. B, or, like the variations in Num. 1.,
XXvVi., to some consideration connected with the placing of the
tribes. The real problem of the passage begins at iv. 20. Its
nature may best be understood from a table of the contents.
These consist of the details of Solomon’s personal greatness and
public works ; the facts are arranged by G&* and {#1 respectively

as follows:
(355

Provision for the royal table (iv.
20—23).

Solomon’s power (iv. 24).

His wisdom (iv. 25—30).

His marriage (iv. 31).

His wife’s dowry (iv. 32 ff.).

His negociations with King
Hiram (v. I—1I2).

His corvée of workmen (v. 13—
17).

Foundations of the Temple laid
(vil. I—5). |

Dimensions of the Temple (vi.
6 f.).

1 Driver, 7227, p. 100.

JEL

Solomon’s marriage (iii. 1).

Provision for the royal table (v.
2 fats):

The King’s power (v. 4).

His wisdom (v. 9—I4).

His negociations. with King
Hiram (v. 15—25).

His corvée of workmen (v. 27—
32),

Foundations of the Temple laid
(vi. 1).

Dimensions of the Temple(vi. 6).

Details of the building (vi. 2,
7, 36).

2 Cf. infra, p. 244.

238 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.

G5 ΖΕ
Details of the building (ν]. 8--:ὄ Building of the royal palaces
34). (vil. I—1I2).
Work of Hiram the artist (vii. Work of Hiram the artist (vii.

I—37). 12—51).
Building of the royal palaces Solomon’s wife’s dowry (ix. 16 f.).
(vii. 38—50).

As in the disturbed section at the end of Exodus, it is easy
to see that each order follows a system: (1) Whilst {#0 places
the marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh’s daughter, and the use
made by the king of his wife’s marriage portion, in their
historical settings, &® brings the two incidents together, as the
finishing strokes to the picture of Solomon’s power. Again,
whilst {#% deals with the whole of Solomon’s public works
before it describes the skill of Hiram, &&® completes the history
of the building of the Temple with the account of Hiram’s
labours before it describes the construction of the royal
palaces.

The above comparison is necessarily rough; it does not
shew the minor differences of order, or the omissions and
additions of the Greek text. A closer examination leaves little
doubt that &® has been translated from a recension of the
book earlier than that which is preserved in the Massoretic
text’.

C. x. 23—33. The text of &®*"~ here admits two pas-
sages which it had passed over in the earlier contexts, where
they stand in {WM (c. ix. 15, 17—22, v. 1). Of ix. ro—28
Prof. Driver remarks that it “consists of a series of notices
imperfectly connected together,” and that its ‘“‘literary form
...1S, for some reason, less complete than that of any other
portion of the Books of Kings”.”” Under these circumstances
it is not surprising that some of these notices occupied another

1 Cf. Driver, 2177. p. 182, and note; C. F. Burney, in Hastings’ Ὁ. 8.
p- 862 ff.
2 Intr. p. 181.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 239

place in the text which was before the Alexandrian trans-
lator. (Ὁ. v. τ΄, which in the Greek order is x. 30, belongs in
4##1 to another similar collection of loosely-connected para-
graphs. The arrangement followed by G&® is perhaps not
materially better, but it probably represents an earlier stage
in the formation of the book.

C. xi. 3—8. Here (ἢ Τὰς presents a text which differs
from &* and {#1 both in order and in form. A comparison of
G* with G* and #1 will be found to be instructive ; the latter
is diffuse and repeats itself unnecessarily (3 ἔκλιναν γυναῖκες
αὐτοῦ THY καρδίαν αὐτοῦ... 4 ai γυναῖκες αὐτοῦ ἐξέκλιναν τὴν καρδίαν
αὐτοῦ...5 ἐπορεύθη Ξαλωμὼν ὀπίσω τῆς ᾿Αστάρτης...7 τότε φκοδό-
μησεν Σ. ὑψηλὸν... τῇ ᾿Αστάρτῃ) ; the former presents the facts!
briefly and in a logical sequence. Here as elsewhere in this
book Cod. A represents the Hexaplaric Greek, and not the
original Lxx.”

Cc. xx., xxl. The relative order of these chapters is reversed
in #4, which justifies the change by prefacing the story of
Naboth with the words 72873 D399 708 3%. “The dislocation
may have been due to the desire to bring the prophecy of
Ahab’s death nearer to the account of its occurrence’.” Ob-
viously wrong as the present Hebrew order is, Cod. A has
adopted it, interpolating the inapposite ἐγένετο μετὰ τὰ ῥήματα
ταῦτα, which Origen had borrowed from Aquila; and even
Lucian (if he is here nghtly represented by Lagarde) has been
led into the same error, though he seems to retain the true
sequence of the chapters.

PSALMS 1x.—cxlvil.
Throughout the greater part of the Psalter (ἃ and #41

1 B however omits the important statement of v. 3, which comes ‘‘from
the older narrative” (Driver).

2 See Field ad loc., and cf. Silberstein, cider den Ursprung der im cod.
Alex. τ. Vat. des dritten Konigsbuches...tiberlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen,
1893).

$C. F. Burney, /.c.

240 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

follow different systems of numeration. This is due to certain
consecutive Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter being counted as
one in the Greek (ix.+x. Heb. =1x. LxXx.3; cxiv. + Cxv.
Heb. =cxiii. Lxx.), and certain of the Hebrew Psalms being
vice versa divided in the Greek into two (cxvi. Heb. =cxiv. +
CXv, LXx.; cxlvii. Heb. =cxlvi. + exivirsuxx:).

In the Heb. Psalms ix. and x. there are traces of an
acrostic system which have been taken to indicate that the
two Psalms were originally one’. Many Hebrew MSS. join
Psalms cxiv., cxv.*, as in the Lxx. For the division of Psalms
cxvi. and cxlvii. it is less easy to account, but it may have been
due to a desire to make up the number of the Psalms to 150%.

PROVERBS ΧΧΙν.---ΧΧΧΙ.

In the first great section of this book (cc. i.—ix.) there is
no important difference of order, nor does the second section
(x.—xxil. 1) or the third (xxii. 17—xxiv. 22) offer more than
an occasional variation in the grouping of proverbs, combined
with omissions and additions on either side. But at c. xxiv. 23
we enter upon a series of collections which seem at one time
to have formed distinct books or cycles of proverbial teaching,
and here G and #4 differ widely, as a comparison of the
contents will shew.

6 phat
Words of Agur (xxiv. 24—37). Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 23—
Sayings of the Wise (xxiv. 38— ΐ
49). Proverbs of Solomon (xxv. I—
Rest of the Words of Agur Xxix. 21).
(xxiv. 50—68). Words of Agur (xxx. I—33).

1 See Cheyne, Book of Psalms, p. 228; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 471.
Prof. Kirkpatrick (Psalms, 1. p. 41) speaks with less confidence.

2 See Kennicott, ii. p. 410. It should be added that in the MSS.
Pss. cxvi., Cxvii., cxviii. are also often written continuously.

3 **Both in Palestine and in Alexandria great importance seems to have
been attached to this number. In Palestine, however, there were some who
counted only 147 Psalms’’ (Cheyne of. cit. p. xiv.). See also Lagarde,
nov. Ps. gr. Spect., p. 8.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 241

G 2
Words of Lemuel (xxiv. 69—77). Words of Lemuel (xxxi. I—9).
Proverbs of Solomon (xxv. I— Praise of the Virtuous Woman
xxx! 27). (xxxl. IO—31).

Praise of the Virtuous Woman
(xxix. 28—49).

Evidently the order of this portion of the book had not
been. finally settled when the Alexandrian translator did his
work’. Moreover he has failed to understand the headings of
the two sections attributed to Agur and Lemuel?, and has
broken up Agur’s collection, the unity of which he seems not
to have recognised, placing the Sayings of the Wise between
the fragments; unless, indeed, he found them divided in his
Hebrew archetype.

JEREMIAH xxv.—li. A glance at the table which stands
near the beginning of this chapter will shew that the section
c. xxv. 15—-xlv. 5 ({#1) answers in a general way to c. xxxii.
t—li. 35 (G&), whilst c. xlvi. 1—li. 64 (39) is represented,
though not without considerable interruptions of the present
Hebrew order, by c. xxv. 14—xxxi. 44 (&). Speaking roughly
these two sections have exchanged places in the Greek text’.
In & the prophecies against the nations precede the parable
of the intoxicating cup (xxv. 15 ff.=xxxil. 1 ff); in ΜΗ they
form the final section of the book, coming immediately before
the historical appendix (c. li.). If these prophecies were
circulated in a separate form, the words of c. xxv. 13 might
naturally have led an Alexandrian collector to place them
where they stand in the Lxx., whereas in Palestine they were
treated as a postscript to the earlier collections and placed

1 Cf. Robertson Smith, 0.7. iz 7. Ch. p. 111; Toy, Proverbs, p. xxxiii.

2 See Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Ubersetzung d. Proverbien,
PP» '90; O1-

δ _ Origen ad Afric. 4 πολλὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα Kal ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιερεμίᾳ κατενοήσα-
μεν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πολλὴν μετάθεσιν καὶ ἐναλλαγὴν τῆς λέξεως τῶν προφητευομέ-
vov εὕρομεν.

Ss. S. 16

242 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

after xlv. 5. The two texts differ however not only in regard
to the place which they assign to the section as a whole, but
in the relative order of the prophecies. The order of the
nations denounced is in (ἃ Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia,
Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab; but in ##t, Egypt,
Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam,
Babylon. The prophecies had apparently been grouped in
the Alexandrian collection after one manner, and after another
in the collection which was current in Palestine.

EZEKIEL vil. 3—9. Here the divergence of the Lxx. from
the Hebrew text was noticed by Jerome, who writes: ‘in hoc
capitulo iuxta Lxx. interpretes ordo mutatus est et confusus,
ita ut prima novissima sint et novissima vel prima vel media,
ipsaque media nunc ad extrema nunc ad principia transferan-
tur.” The transposition, to whichever side it is to be ascribed,
may be explained by the genius of the passage which is in “a
lyric strain such as is unwonted in Ezekiel’.” A full examina-
tion of the context may be seen in Cornill’, who justly
describes it as ‘‘eine stark verderbte Stelle,” and finds a.
solution in the hypothesis of a doublet (cf. vv. 3—4, 7—8).

(B) DIFFERENCES OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

1. <A further comparison of the Lxx. with the Massoretic
Hebrew reveals the presence in each text of a considerable
number of passages which are not to be found in the other.
This fact was known to Origen, and frankly recognised by him
(ep. ad African. § 3 καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ πολλοῖς ἁγίοις βιβλίοις
εὕρομεν πὴ μὲν πλείονα Tap ἡμῖν κείμενα ἢ παρ᾽ Ἔ βραίοις, πὴ δὲ
λείποντα) ; and the Hexapla, as we have seen®, was the result
of a mistaken endeavour to assimilate the Lxx. to the current:

1 Driver, /ntr. p. 263. : 2 Ezechiel, p. 212.
Pt... tea.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 243

Hebrew text. Its remains are still invaluable as bearing
witness to the condition of both texts in the second and third
centuries after Christ. The student who would grasp the
nature and extent of the problem must examine them in
Field’s great edition ; in this place we will content ourselves
with some notice of additions and omissions which extend to
entire verses or paragraphs.

PENTATEUCH. As a whole, the Law has escaped material
changes in either direction. But there are a few important
exceptions. In Gen. iv. 8 the Lxx. supplies the words of
Cain (διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον), which are wanting in the
Hebrew Bible. The supplementary chapters of Exodus are
on the whole shorter in G than in ##1; the former has
nothing to answer to c. xxxv. 8, xxxvill. 25—-28, xl. 6—8, 11,
and exhibits c. xxxvi. 8—34 in an abridged form. In the
Song of Moses the last four distichs are expanded in (ἃ into
eight, thus:

[evppavOnre, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ,

καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ υἱοὶ θεοῦ"]
εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ,

[καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
ἐπὶ τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται,

[καὶ ἐκδικήσει] καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς,
[καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει,

καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ [Κύριος] τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ.

There is nothing in ΜΈ which corresponds with the
bracketed words of the version. Yet they are present in all
uncial MSS. of the Lxx., and were probably in the earlier
copies of Deuteronomy which passed into the possession of
the Christian Church. Possibly the Song was circulated in a
separate form in more than one translation. The present
Greek text seems to be the result of conflation, lines 1 and 3,
2 and 4, 6 and 7, being doublets; line 2 = 4 appears to be an
adaptation of Ps. xcvi. (xcvil.) 7.

16—2

244 Looks of the Hebrew Canon,

JosHua. Besides innumerable smaller variations in this
book which shew that it was not regarded by the translators
as sharing the peculiar sanctity of the Torah’, there are in the
last four chapters several important contexts in which & and
#4 differ by defect or excess’.

C. xix. 4748 (#41). The order of these verses is reversed
in (ἃ, so as to bring the words αὕτη ἡ κληρονομία κτλ. into
juxtaposition with the list of the Danite towns (vv. 41—46) ;
and to each of the verses which have thus exchanged places
the Lxx. attaches a rider, based apparently upon Judges ii.
34f., and describing the relations between the new settlers
and the Amorites.

C. xx. 4—6. Omitted in (ἃ. “It is probable that the
ch. in its original form (P) has been enlarged by additions
from the law of homicide in Dt. (c. 19) at a comparatively late
date, so that they were still wanting in the MSS. used by the
LXx. translators*.”

C. xxi. 36—37, 42 a—d. The printed Hebrew Bibles
omit vv. 36—37, which contain the names of the Levitical
cities in the territory of Reuben, and they seem to have
been obelised in the Greek by Origen. They are found, how-
ever, in the majority of Hebrew MSS.*, and are necessary to
the completeness of the narrative. Vv. 42 a—c are little more
than a doublet of c. xix. 50, 51b; 42d appears to be based
upon c. v. 3.

C. xxiv. 30a—33b. V. 30a continues the story of the
flint knives (v. 7, xxi. 42d). &, which omits v. 31, a
doublet of Judges ii. 7, adds to the book a postscript,
HY. 33. a—b, based on v. 33, 1 Sam. iv. 3 ff., Judges ii. 6, 11 ff,
11.01.4,

1 See G. A. Smith in Hastings’ 2, B. ii. p. 784.
2 Op. cit., p. 781 ff. 3 Driver, Zztr. p. 105.
4 See Kennicott, i. p. 474, De Rossi, i. p. 96 ff.; and cf. Field, Hexapla,

i. p- 387, Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, il. p. 472 ff.
5 See Knobel in Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch zum A.T., p. 488.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 245

I SAMUEL (I REGN.).

C. ii. 9, ro. The closing stanza of this hymn, like that of
the Song of Moses, is presented by & in a modified and
expanded form. Vv. ὃς, 9a are omitted in &, which substi-
tutes διδοὺς εὐχὴν... δικαίου (“apparently an attempt to ac-
commodate the Song more closely to Hannah’s position”),
and inserts in the heart of v. 10 a passage from Jerem. ix. 23,
24, taken from the Greek version, but with variations which
form an instructive study :—

I Regn. ii. here
ς \ > “- , c > \
6 φρόνιμος ἐν τῇ φρονήσει. ioe ὁ σοφὸς ev πῇ σοφίᾳ...ὁ ἰσχυρὸς
rn ΄ ¢ U x ἢ
δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει.. tov Κύ- ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι... ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος 6
ριον, καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιο- ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιο-
/ ~ ~
σύνην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς. σύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

It has been noticed that 1 Regn. il. 11a (καὶ κατέλιπεν
αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ ἐνώπιον Κυρίου) probably corresponds to 1 Sam. 1
28b (TIM? OY ANAwW:), If so, the Song has been inserted
in (ἃ and {4 at different points in the narrative*; and
it seems to be a reasonable inference that it was not in the
original draft of the book. Such a hypothesis will account
for the freedom with which it has been treated in G.

Cc. xvii—xvil. This is the most important of the contexts
in which G&* differs from G* {#1 in the way of defect. The
omitted verses contain the story of David’s visit to the camp
of Israel (xvil. 12—31); David’s interview with Saul and
Jonathan (xvii. 55—xvili. 5); Saul’s attempts upon David’s
life (xviii. 1o—11, 17—19); besides occasional details of less
importance (xvii. 41, 50; XViil. 30).

These omissions have been variously explained. Accord-
ing to Wellhausen and Kuenen®, the Greek translator, or the
scribe of the archetype followed by Cod. B, has deliberately

1 Driver, Samuel, p. 20.

2 See Wellhausen, der Text d. B. Samuelis, Ὁ. 42; Driver, of. ctt., pp.

E7319, 20; HH. P. Smith, Semel, p. 13.
3 Driver, Zztr., p. 170; Samuel, Ὁ. 116 f.

246 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

removed the missing verses, from a desire to harmonise. Cer-
tainly the result of their absence is to reduce, if not altogether
to remove, the conflict between c. xvi. 14 ff., which represents
David as an experienced warrior with whose reputation Saul
is already acquainted, and cc. xvil., xvill., where on a later
occasion he appears as a shepherd lad of whom the king has
as yet heard nothing. But, as Robertson Smith has pointed
out, it is difficult to believe that simple omissions made without
changing a word of what was left could produce a complete
and consecutive narrative such as we find in (ἃ. He con-
cludes that the verses omitted by (ἃ are ‘‘interpolations in the
Hebrew text, extracts from a lost biography of David...not
found in the text which lay before the Lxx. translators’.”
Driver? doubts whether the verses can have been interpolated
in a strict sense, ‘‘for an interpolation would not insert any-
thing at variance with the narrative interpolated.” “We seem
therefore (he adds) shut up to the conclusion that the verses
omitted in the Vat. MS. belong to an independent narrative,
which was in parts incorporated with the older account, but
not in all MSS. existing when the Lxx. translated the book.”

The omissions are supplied in G‘, τῆς, but probably from
a non-Septuagintal source; the passages are marked with an
asterisk in the Hexaplaric MSS. 64, 92%.

C. xxill. 11—12. Here &® omits by homoeoteleuton the
Heb. from 7) (v. 11) to 1492 (v. 12). But it also omits Oya
ΙΒ ΠΡῸΡ (v. 11), and Wellhausen conjectures with probability
that εἰ ἀποκλεισθήσεται was wanting in the original form of the
Lax."

1 Kincs (3 REGN.).

In this book (ἃ contains a large quantity of additional
matter, of varying character and worth.

1 0.7. in F. Ch., pp. 121, 431 ff.; cf. Kirkpatrick, 1 Samuel, p. 241 ff.

21 Samuel, p. 117.
8 Cf. Field ad Joc. 4 See H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 212.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 247

C. 1. 35 a—n, 46 a—l, are summaries of Solomon’s
personal history, which have been attached, probably by the
accidents of transcription, to the verses which they severally
follow. On examination each of these passages proves to be
made up partly of translations from verses which are not
represented in the true Lxx., partly of fragments of the Lxx.
which occur elsewhere in their true order, partly of brief
descriptions gathered from other parts of the book.

Thus ii. 35 a—b=iv. 25—26, c=iv. 31, d=v. 15, e=vii. 10ff,,
f—g=ix. 24—25 (ff), h=v. τό, i—k=x. 23 ff., l—o=ii. eit
Similarly, ii. 46 a=iv. 20 (fH), b=v. 2 (fA), c=iil. 1 (fA), d=ix.
18 (f{M), e=iv. 22—23, f=iv. 24, g=v. 5 (fM), h=2ff., i—k=x.
29—30.

C. vii. 53a is an addition of quite another character and
of the highest interest. The true Lxx. (G*) omits viii. 12, 13,
which in cod. A are thus supplied from Aquila’: τότε εἶπεν
Σαλωμών Κύριος εἶπεν tod σκηνῶσαι ἐν γνόφῳ. οἰκοδόμησα οἶκον
κατοικητηρίου σοι, ἕδρασμα τῆς καθέδρας σου αἰῶνος. But after
v. 53 (ἃ gives the substance of these words in a poetical form
which is expressly attributed to an older source:

TOTE ἐλάλησεν Σ. ὑπὲρ τοῦ οἴκου ὡς συνετέλεσεν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι
αὐτόν Ἥλιον ἐγνώρισεν (Luc., ἔστησεν) ἐν οὐρανῷ Κύριος" | εἶπεν
τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐκ γνόφου (A, ἐν γνόφῳ): | οἰκοδόμησον οἶκόν μου,
οἶκον ἐκπρεπῆ (Α, εὐπρεπῆ) σαυτῷ, | τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ καινότητος. |
οὐκ ἰδοὺ αὕτη γέγραπται ἐν βιβλίῳ τῆς ῳδῆς;

Though this occurs in cod. A and Lucian, it was want-
ing in the Hebrew text which was before the translators
of the second century a.D., for in the Hexapla it appeared
only in the Lxx. column’. But (as its very errors shew) it is
a translation of a Hebrew original, and the βιβλίον τῆς δῆς
from which it came is doubtless none other than the Book
of Jashar (W*T7BD, read as WT δ)", Here G has preserved

1 Cf. Field ad doc.

2 See Field ad /oc., who quotes from cod. 243, ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἐξαπλῷ παρὰ
μόνοις φέρεται Tots ο΄.

Ἐπ τίνει, /nir., p. 182.

248 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.

for us a precious relic, which in {#1 has been first misplaced
and then partly lost’.

C. ΧΙ. 24 a—z. The longest interpolation in the book,
partly similar to the Greek additions in c. 11., but ‘presenting
greater difficulties. After rehearsing the facts connected with
the death of Solomon, and summarising the reign of Rehoboam,
the interpolator tells the story of the rise of Jeroboam and
the revolt of Israel, going over the ground already covered
in cc. xi—xi., and anticipating c. xiv. ({#1).

The parallels are xil. 24 a=xi. 43, xiv. 2I—22; b=xi. 26—
28; c=xi. 40; d—f=xi. 43°; xii. 2—5 (ff); g—n*=xiv. I—20
(fA); nb>—z=xii. 3—24.

But the passage is no mere cento of verses to be found
elsewhere either in (ἃ or #1; it is a second and distinct
recension of the story, resting equally with the first upon a
Hebrew original. So different and indeed in some respects
contradictory are the accounts that they “‘cannot possibly have
stood from the first in the same volume.” The same action is
ascribed in the one ‘‘to Shemaiah, at Shechem, in the days of
Rehoboam”; and in the other “‘to Ahijah, at Jerusalem, in the
days of Solomon’.” In fact, the present Greek version of 1 Kings
has preserved two ancient accounts of the dismemberment of
the Kingdom of David and Solomon, and though one of
these survives also in {#1 there is no ὦ prior? ground for
deciding which of the two is the more trustworthy. It Js
worthy of notice that cod. B omits the reference to Jeroboam’s
residence in Egypt in xu. 2, and the visit of Jeroboam’s wife to
Ahijah as it is told in c. xiv. 1—20, though it gives the two
irreconcilable accounts of the meeting of Jeroboam with the
prophet (xi. 29 ff., xii. 240). The whole of the narrative,
so far as it exists only in the Greek, is omitted by A and

1 See the passage discussed in Robertson Smith, O. 7. in Ἃ Ch.,

P+ 433: ae ;
2 Robertson Smith, 92. cz¢., p. 118.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 249

the Syro-hexaplar, but it seems to have been retained by
Lucian’.

C. xvi. 28 a—h consists of another recension of the sum-
mary of Jehoshaphat’s reign which occurs in c. xxll. 41—44,
47—50, where the last four verses are omitted altogether in
(5. Lucian, who agrees with (5 in the interpolation at xvi.
28, omits xxl. 40 b—52.

2 ΚΙΝΟΒ (4 REGN.).

C. i. 18 a—d. An addition similar in character to that
which follows 3 Regn. xvi. 28. The summary of Joram’s
reign has attached itself to the beginning as well as to the
end of the story of Elijah’s ascension, whilst in #1 it finds a
place only at the end (iil, r—3). In this instance, however,
G* ™° agrees with G* in repeating the summary, though
with some variations. The student will find a comparison
instructive.

1 CHRONICLES i. 1o—16, 17 b—23 are wanting in &*, which
thus shortens the genealogy by omitting (1) the posterity of
Ham, except the Cushites, (2) the longer of two lists of the
posterity of Shem. Both passages are supplied (from Gen.
x. 1318, 22—-29) by cod. A, in a version which came from
Hexaplaric sources (see Field, i. p. 704).

2 CHRONICLES xxxv. 190 a—d, xxxvl. 2 a—c, 5 a—d, are
versions of 2 Kings xxilil. 2427, 31 b—33, xxlv. I—4, based
apparently upon a recension of the Hebrew which differs from
{Ἐϊ, and only in part assimilated to G.

2 ESDRAS xxl, xxil. (Neh. xi, χα). The lists of princes and
Levites are much shortened in &*, which omits altogether xx1.
16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32--35; xxll. 46, 9, 1521, 38, 40, 41.

1 Lagarde, V.7. Gr. i. ad loc. For a careful treatment of the diffe-
rences between (5 and f€l in 3 Regn. see Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes
Israel, ii.

250 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

PSALMS.

In G many of the Psalms receive titles, or additions to
their titles, which are wanting in ##1. The following is a list
of those which occur in the uncial MSS.

x. (xi.) + ψαλμός. So xiii. (xiv.), xxiv. (xxv.), xliii. (xliv.), Ixxx.
(1xxxi.).

XXill. (xxiv.)-+T7s μιᾶς σαββάτου.

Xxvi. (xxvil.) + πρὸ τοῦ χρισθῆναι.

XXViil. (xxix. ) + ἐξοδίου σκηνῆς.

χχιχ. (Xxx.) pr. εἰς τὸ TéXos.

XXX. (ΧΧΧΙ.) Ὁ ἐκστάσεως.

χΧΧΧΙΪ. (xxxlil.). To Δαυείδ.

XXXVI. (XXXVIIL. )+mepi σαββάτου.

xli. (Χ111.)- Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ (cod. A.).

xlii. (xliil.). Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ.

xlvii. (xlviii.) + δευτέρᾳ ‘caBBarov.

Ixy. (Ixvi.)+avacraceas.

Ixvi. (Ixvii.)+7@ Δαυείδ (om. pois).

Ixix. (Ixx.) + εἰς τό Σῶσαί με Κύριον.

Ixx. (Ixxi.). Τῷ Δαυείδ, υἱῶν ᾿Ιωναδὰβ καὶ τῶν πρώτων aixpa-
λωτισθέντων.
Ixxv. (Ixxvi.)-+ πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ασσύριον.
Ixxix. (Ixxx.) - ὑπὲρ τοῦ ᾿Ασσυρίου.
xc. (xci.). Alvos eons τῷ Δαυείδ.
XCii. (xcill.). Εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου, ὅτι κατῴκισται ἡ
yn αἶνος ὠδῆς τῷ Δαυείδ.

xiii. (xciv.). Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ, τετράδι σαββάτου.

χοῖν. (xcv.). Αἶνος φδῆς τῷ Aaueltt

RCV. (RCV). Ὅτι 6 οἶκος οἰκοδομεῖται μετὰ THY αἰχμαλωσίαν "
δὴ τῷ Δαυείδ.

xcvi. (xcvil.). Τῷ Δαυείδ, ὅτε ἡ γῆ αὐτοῦ καθίσταται.

ΧΕ (XCVIil. γε τῷ Rave.

XCVili. (xCix.). Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυείδ.

ciil. (civ.). Τῷ Δαυείδ.

civ. (cv.). ‘AAAnAouvid: SO CV., Cvi. (CVI., CVil.), Cxill. (Cxiv.,
cxv.), cxiv. (cxvi.) I—9Q, cCxvi. (Cxvil.), Cxvii. (Cxvill.), CXxxv.
(cxxxvi.), [but in each of these cases the Greek title is the
equivalent of a final moon in the M.T. of the preceding Psalm].

cx. (cxi.). Αλληλουιά: SO CXI., CXil. (CXil., Cxiii.), CxXxiv.
(cxxxv.), [but in each of these cases the Greek title is the
equivalent of an opening ANON in the M.T. of the Psalm].

cxv. (Cxvl. 1ο--- 10). ΣΎΝ ΚΤ, So cxvili. (Cxix.).
CXXXVi. (Cxxxvil.). Τῷ Δαυείδ.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 251

CXXXVil. (CXXXVlil.) + Ζαχαρίου A (-pias T).

CXXXVlll. (Cxxxix.) + Ζαχαρίου (cod. Α.)- ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ (A? T).

cxlii. (cxliil.) + ὅτε αὐτὸν ὁ vids καταδιώκει (κατεδίωξεν A).

cxlili. (cxliv.)+ πρὸς τὸν Γολιάδ.

cxlv. (cxlvi.). ᾿Αλληλουιά" ‘Ayyalov καὶ Ζαχαρίου (Heb. 7M
7).

cxlvi. (cxlviil. I—I1). ‘AAAnAoud: “Ayyaiou καὶ Ζαχαρίου (where
“AAA. answers to the first word of the Psalm in ff as in cx.
(cxi.)).

cxlvii. (cxlvii. Io—20). As cxlvi., except that “AAA. is not in

‘cxlviii. As cxlvi. but ‘ANA. is here represented in {4 both
at the end of the preceding Psalm and at the beginning of Ps.
cxlviil.

‘exlix. ‘AAAnAoud. In ΠΗ at the end of cxlviii. and the
beginning of. cxlix.

cl. ᾿Αλληλουιά. As in cxlix.

On the questions raised by the Greek titles see Neubauer in
Studia Bibl. ii. p. 1 ff., Driver, Zztr. p. 348 ff., the commentaries,
e.g. those of Perowne, Kirkpatrick, and Cheyne, and the last-
named author’s Origin of the Psalter. Valuable traditions are
probably embodied in the liturgical notes which assign certain
Psalms to particular days of the week (τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτου, δευτέρᾳ
o., τετράδι σ.ἷ, εἰς THY ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου (cf. Mc. xv. 42)),
and in those which attribute others to the time of the Return
(Ζαχαρίου, “Ayyaiov) or to the Dispersion (ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ). On
the other hand some of the Greek titles appear to be fanciful
(πρὸ τοῦ χρισθῆναι, πρὸς τὸν Τολιάδ), whilst others are obscure
(ἐκστάσεως, ἀναστάσεως).

For the Christian (mystical) interpretation of the Greek titles
see Athan. de titulis Psalmorum (Migne, P. G. xxvii. 591 sqq.),
the variorum prolegomena in Pitra’s Analecta sacra ii. p. 411 sqq.,
and Corderii 4272. patr. Gr. tn Psalmos, passim.

Ps. xiil. (xiv.) 3 a—c. This, the only long interpolatien in
the Greek Psalter, is found upon examination to be made up
of Pss. v.. Tob,’ exxxrx. '(exl:) 4b) a. 0) 818, Isa. hx7,°8,'Ps.
Xxxv. (Xxxvl.) 18, all taken or abridged from the Lxx. version
with slight variations. That it never formed a part of the

1 Cf. πέμπτῃ σαββάτου prefixed to Ps. lxxxi. in the cursive MS. 156
(Oriext, p. 75).

252 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

Hebrew Psalm may be safely affirmed, yet it is quoted con-
tinuously in Rom. ii. 1318, where it follows without break
upon an abridgement of Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 1—3.

The Greek addition had a place in the κοινή before the
time of Origen, who marked it with an obelus (Field, ad Zoc.).
Whether it was brought into the text of the Lxx. from the
Epistle’, or was already in the Greek Psalm as known to
St Paul, cannot perhaps now be ascertained. But it doubtless
had its origin in the Rabbinical practice of stringing together
passages excerpted from various books of the Old Testament
(Sanday and Headlam on Romans, /.¢.), and it may have
existed under this form in a collection of ¢estzmonza used by
the Apostle (on such collections see Hatch, “ssays, p. 203,
Westcott, Hebrews, p. 476 ff.).

Ps. cli. (ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος). The MSS. of the Lxx. con-
tain after Ps. cl. a Psalm which bears the title Otros ὃ ψαλμὸς
ἰδιόγραφος εἰς Aaveid καὶ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, ὅτε ἐμονομάχησεν τῷ
Γολιάδ, O. L., hic psalmus sibi 2702716 scriptus est David, extra
numerum, cum pugnavit cum Golia|th|. The letter of Athana-
sius to Marcellinus, which is incorporated in cod. A, speaks
freely of this Psalm as the work of David, and as Ps. cli. (§ 14
ol μὲν καυχήσεως τῆς ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀπαγγέλλοντες λόγους εἰσὶ κβ΄ Kat
Ko’, λη΄..«ρνα΄ : ὃ 25 τῷ ἐκλεξαμένῳ κυρίῳ διδοὺς δόξαν ψάλλε καὶ
σὺ τὸν ρνα΄ ἴδιον ὄντα τοῦ Δαυείδ) ; and it is quoted as a Psalm
of David by the author of the pseudonymous letter of Mary to
Ignatius (cent. iv.; Lightfoot, Zenatius, 111. 144, φησὶν γάρ που
αὐτὸς ὅτι Μικρὸς ἤμην, κτλ.). Moreover the scribe of Cod. &
regarded it as a part of the Psalter, for his subscription runs
yadmo! Aad pna. In cod. A, however, it is carefully excluded
from the Psalter proper (subscr. yadmol PN Kal IAIOfpadoc ἃ);
and the judgement of the Laodicene canon (βίβλος ψαλμῶν
ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα) is upheld by the title which in all the MSS.

1 Cf. Hatch, Zssays, p. 209 ff.

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 253

pronounces this ‘autograph’ (ἰδιόγραφος) work of David to be
ἔξωθεν or ἐκτὸς τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, 2.4. τῶν pv’ ψαλμῶν.

This Psalm is clearly based on 1 Kings xvi. 7, 11, 26, 43,
51; 2 Kings vi. 5; 2 Chron. xxix. 26; Ps. Ixxviil. 70, Ixxxix.
20. Its resemblance to the Lxx. of those passages is not so
close as to suggest a Greek original, but on the other hand
there is no evidence that it ever existed in Hebrew. Whether
it had a Hebrew or a Greek original, it was probably added to
the Greek Psalter after the translation of the fifth book was
complete.

For the literature .of Ps. cli. see Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 749,
and Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. v. 72, p. 905 ff.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL CANTICLES.

In certain uncial MSS. and a large proportion of the cur-
sives the Psalms are followed by a collection of liturgical ᾧδαί
(cantica). The following table shews the sources and order of
those which are given by codd. A, R, T.

A R ἮΝ

I. Exod. xxv. I—19. Exod. xv. 1---21.
2. Deut. xxxll. I—43. Deut. xxxill. I—44.
3. 1 Regn. 11. I—10. 1 Regn. il. I—Io.
4. Isa. xxvi. 9—20. Isa. v. I—9.
5. Ion. 11. 3—I0. Ion. 11. 3—I0.
6. Hab. iii. I—109. Hab. iii. I—19. [6] 1 Regn. ii. [1 ]—10.
7. Isa.xxxvill. 10—20. Magnificat. 7. Magnificat.
8. Prayer of Manas- Dan. 111. 52—90. 8. Isa.xxxvill, 1o—2o.

seh}. 9. Prayer of Manas-
9. Dan. ili. 26—45. seh},
IO. 4, » 52—88. 10. Dan. 111. 26—45.
11. Magnificat. PIs! Yh 55 52256:
12. Nunc dimittzs. τ | gs BFS OO.
13. Benedictus. 13. Benedictus.
14. Morning Hymn. 14. Muncdimtttts.

15. Morning Hymn.

1 The προσευχὴ Μαννασσή (so Cod. A; Cod. T. mp. Μανασσὴ υἱοῦ
‘Egexiov) is usually regarded as an attempt by a Hellenistic Jew to re-
construct the prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; see, however Ball

254 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

The nine Odes now sung at Lauds in the Orthodox Church
are (following the order of cod. A) nos. I, 2, 3, 6, 4, 5, 9, 10,
I1+13; the Roman Church uses at Lauds on successive days
of the week το, Isa. xii., Isa. xxxvill. Io—20, 3, I, 6, 2, whilst
13, 11, 12 are recited daily at Lauds, Vespers, and Compline
respectively. The Mozarabic Breviary, as printed, provides no
fewer than 76 scriptural canticles. Little has been done as yet
to examine either the Greek or the Latin Psalters with the view
of determining the local distribution of these canticles; but the
student may refer to art. Canticles in DCA., and also to
Martene, de ant. ret. eccl., p. 25, Neale, Hist. of the H. Eastern
Church, ii. p. 834 f., Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, i.
p. 124 f.; on the Canticles of the Latin: Church he may consult
with advantage Thomasius, off. 11. pp. xv. sqq., 295 sqq.

The text of the O. T. canticles in the Psalter of cod. A differs
in places from that which is given by the same MS. where the
canticles appear with their context in the books to which they
severally belong. Thus we find the following variants: Exod.
XV. 14 ὠργίσθησαν, cant. ἐφοβήθησαν : Deut. xxxll. 7 γενεῶν ye-
veais, cant. γεν ἃς γενεῶν : 18 γεννήσαντα, cant. ποιήσαντα: 1 Regn.
ii. τοῦ φρονήσει, cant. copia: 10° ἄκρα γῆς, cant.+dixaos dv. But
the deviations are not numerous, and the text of the canticles
appears on the whole to belong to the same family as that of the
body of the MS.

The division of the Psalter into books’ seems to have
been already made when it was translated into Greek, for
though the Greek codices have nothing to answer to the head-
ings }}WN7 75D, etc., which appear in the printed Hebrew Bible,
the Doxologies at the end of the first four books appear in the

in Speaker's Comm. (Apocr. ii. 362 ff.). The Greek text appears in
Const. A post. ii. 22 and in the Ddascalia, where it follows a reference to
Chron. ἃ c.; in MSS. of the Lxx. it finds a place only among the can-
ticles. See Fabricius-Harles, iii. 732, Westcott in Smith’s D. 2. ii. 226,
Schiirer*, iii. 337 f.: and for the text with an apparatus, Fritzsche, V. 7’.
Gr. libr. Apocr., pp. xiv. sq., 92 sq. A detailed account of the editions,
MSS., and versions and a discussion of the origin of the Prayer will
be found in Dr Nestle’s Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899), p. 6 ff.;
see also RysSel in Kautzsch’s Apokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen.

1 A pre-Christian arrangement, as Hippolytus already knew (AyZoth. in
Psalmos, τὸ ψαλτήριον eis πέντε διεῖλον βιβλία οἱ Ἑβραῖοι). Cf. Robertson
Smith, Ο. 7. 22 Fewish Ch., p. τθ4 τ. In the lists of the Canon ‘“ the
mention of five Books of Psalms is peculiar to Codex Amiatinus ” (Sanday,
in Studia Biblica iii. p. 242 ff.).

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 255

Greek as well as in the M. T. (Ps. xl. (xli.) 14, Ixxi. (Ixxii.)
18—2zo, Ixxxvili. (Ixxxix.) 5, cv. (cvi.) 48).

PRovERBS. The variations of & and ## in this book are
treated by Lagarde in his early book Anumerkungen zur griech.
Ubersetzung der Proverbien. There is a considerable number of
Greek verses for which {#1 offers no Hebrew equivalent, and
there are some Hebrew verses or half-verses for which there is no
Greek. Of the Greek verses not in {#1 some (e.g. iv. 27a—b, vi.
8a—c) appear to be of. Greek, perhaps early Christian, origin ;
others have been collected from various contexts (e.g. iil. 16
= 16a. xlv, 232 + Proy.; xxx. 265! XKVI. TES τς τὸν 21} OF ane
fragments of the book which have been accidentally inserted
twice (ill. 228. “1. 8, 28c=xxvil. 1); others, again, seem to
have arisen from the fusion of two renderings (xv. 18a, xvi.
17); but there remain not a few which probably represent
genuine portions of the original collections, though wanting in
the present Hebrew text, e.g. vil. 1a, Vill. 21a, 1x. 12 a—c,
18 a—c, Xll. Il a, 13a, Xvil. 6a, Xvill. 22a, xxi. 8a (cited in
2 Cor. ix. 7), XXlv. 22 a—e, XXVll. 204, 21 a.

Jos. The Lxx. text of Job current in Origen’s time is
known to have been very much shorter than the Greek text
preserved in extant MSS. and the M.T.

Ad African. 4 πλεῖστά τε ὅσα διὰ μέσου ὅλου τοῦ Ἰὼβ παρ᾽
ἜἜβραίοις μὲν κεῖται map ἡμῖν δὲ οὐχί, καὶ πολλάκις μὲν ἔπη τέσσαρα
ἢ τρία: ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε δὲ καὶ δεκατέσσαρα καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ δεκαέξ (707.
leg. ἐννέα καὶ ἕξ 1). Cf. Hieron. praef zx Hiob: “cui [sc. libro
Iob], si ea quae sub asteriscis addita sunt subtraxeris, pars
maxima voluminis detruncabitur, et hoc duntaxat apud Graecos.
ceterum apud Latinos...septingenti ferme aut octingenti versus
desunt,”

The asterisks are preserved in certain cursive MSS. of the

1 For this correction see a note by Dr Nestle in Exg. 7imes, Aug. 1899
(Ρ. 523):

256 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

Greek Job? and in MSS. of Jerome’s version, while the shorter
form is represented by the earliest form of the O.L. and in the
Sahidic version. Most of the extant Greek MSS., including
the best uncials, offer a text in which the lacunae are supplied
(chiefly from Theodotion), but which still falls short of the
fulness of the Hexaplaric Lxx. and of #1*.

Dr Hatch’ in his Essay On Origen’s revision of the LXX.
text of Job advocates the theory that the Lxx. represents a
shorter Hebrew text which was afterwards expanded into the
longer form. The same view was maintained in the earlier
treatise of Bickell de indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae
in interpretando libro Lobi (Marburg, 1862). Recent critics
incline to an opposite view. ‘The evident desire of the trans-
lator to follow classical models suggests that he was an Alex-
andrian Hellenist* who intended his version for general reading,
rather than for use in the synagogue’. Under such circum-
stances he may have been tempted to reduce the length of
his original, especially in passages where it did not lend itself
readily to his treatment. On the other hand he has not
scrupled here and there to add to the original. Thus in c. ii.
9 he seeks to heighten the effect and at the same time to
soften the harshness of the words uttered by Job’s wife (χρόνου
οὐ πολλοῦ προβεβηκότος... λέγων ᾿Ιδοὺ ἀναμένω κτλ.).

The two notes at the end of the Greek Job (xlii. 17a, b—e)
scarcely profess to belong to the book. The first (γέγραπται δὲ
αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι μεθ᾽ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἀνίστησιν) may be
either a Pharisaic or a Christian gloss, intended to balance the
ἐτελεύτησεν Ἰώβ of the previous hemistich, and arising out of

1 Cf. Hatch, Zssays, p. 216; Field, Hexagia, ii. p. 1 f.; E. Kloster-
mann, Azalecta, p. 63 f.

2 Burkitt, O. 2. and Stala, p. 8. 3 Essays, p. 214 ff.

4 On the translator’s date cf. Schiirer%, iii. pp. 311, 356 f.

5 Cf. Hatch, of. cit., p. 219: ‘‘It was made after Judaism had come
into contact with Greek philosophy. It may be presumed to have been
intended not only for Greek-speaking Jews, but also for aliens.” The ver-
sion shews some knowledge of Homer and Aeschylus (cf. Smith, D. 2.°,
vol. I. pt. ii. p. 1723).

—

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 257

xix. 26 ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναστήσαι (Vv. 2. ἀναστήσει) τὸ δέρμα pov, to which
passage γέγραπται seems to refer. The second Note, which
professes to come from an Aramaic source (otros ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ
τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου), confuses Job (AN) with the Edomite king

Jobab (331’) (Gen. xxxvi. 33 f.=1 Chron. i. 44 f.), and bases on

this identification a pedigree of the patriarch, according to which
he was ‘fifth from Abraham,’ and a descendant of Esau. Similar
statements occur in a fragment of the Hellenistic writer Aristeas
quoted by Polyhistor, and from Polyhistor by Eusebius (fraep.
év. ix. 25). From a comparison of this extract with the note
attached to Job, Freudenthal was led to ascribe the note to
Aristeas*. Beyond the geographical description of Uz (ἐπὶ τοῖς
ὁρίοις τῆς ᾿Ιδουμαίας καὶ "ApaBias), and the statements that Job’s
wife was an Arab woman and that her son’s name was Ennon
or Enon (v. 4), the note contains nothing new: 17c—d rests
upon Gen. xxxvi. 32—35 (LXX.), and 174 on Job 1]. 11 (LXxX.).

EstHER. In the Greek Esther we reach the maximum of
interpolation. Of 270 verses, 107 are wanting in the present
Hebrew text, and probably at no time formed a part of the
Hebrew book*®. The Greek additions are distributed through
the book in contexts as long as average chapters*. In the
Latin Bible they are collected at the end of the canonical
book, where they fill several consecutive chapters (x. 4—x1.
5=F, Xl. 2—xll. 6=A, xill, I—7=B, xl. 8—xiv. I19=C, xv.
4—I9=D, xvl. I—24=E). This arrangement is due to
Jerome, who relegated the Greek interpolations to the end of
the canonical book ; but it has had the effect of making them
unintelligible. In their Greek sequence they form part of a
consecutive history; A, which precedes c. 1., introduces the
story by describing the events which led to the first advance-
ment of Mordecai at the court of Artaxerxes; B and E, which

1 (Ἔκ τῆς Σ. B. weist doch auf einen Midrasch oder ein Targum hin”
(Dillmann, 470d, p. 361).

4 Schiirer®, dis: ps σιν.

3 Cf. Origen, ad Afric. 3 ἐκ τῆς Εσθὴρ οὔτε ἡ τοῦ Μαρδοχαίου εὐχὴ οὔτε
ἡ τῆς Εσθηρ... παρ᾽ ᾿Εβραίοις φέρονται" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ αἱ ἐπιστολαί" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἡ
τῷ ᾿Αμμὰν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τοῦ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθνους γεγραμμένη, οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ
| ciel pan

+ In the Cambridge Lxx. they are distinguished ΒΥ the Roman capitals

A—F, a notation suggested by Dr Hort.

Ἐν 5. 7

258 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

follow ui. 13 and vill. 12, profess to give copies of the letters
of Artaxerxes referred to in those verses ; c and D, which come
between c. iv. and c. v., contain the prayers of Mordecai and
Esther, and a description of Esther’s approach to the King;
F is an epilogue, which completes the story by relating the
institution of the feast of Purim. Such Haggadic accretions
will not create surprise if it be remembered that Esther was
among the latest of the Kethubim, and that its canonicity was
matter of dispute in Jewish circles even in the last years of the
first century a.D.’

A note attached to the last of the Greek additions professes
to relate the circumstances under which the book was brought
to Egypt: ‘‘in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and
Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said that he was a priest and Levite,
and his son Ptolemy, brought the above Letter of Purim’, as
they called it, which had been translated (so they said) by
one Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, a resident at Jerusalem.”
As Fritzsche remarks*, no fewer than four Ptolemies married a
Cleopatra (Epiphanes, Philometor, Physcon, and Lathyrus), so
that the date intended by the fourth year of Ptolemy and
Cleopatra is by no means certain, though it is perhaps most
naturally interpreted as =B.c. 179-8, the fourth year of
Philometor*. But the historical value of the note is more
than doubtful’.

The Greek text of Esther exists in two recensions (1) that of
NABN 55, 934, 108 a, 249 al., (2) that of 19, 93a, 1084; both are
exhibited by Ussher (Syzdéagma), Fritzsche (Eo6np, 1848; /2brz
apocryphi, 1871), and Lagarde (br. canon. V. T. 1., 1883). The

1 See Ryle, Canon, p. 139 f., 203 ff.; and cf. supra, p. 228 f.

2 Φρουραί (Φρουραια &*, Φρουριμ N°-*), cf. c. ix. 26, and Jos. ans. vi. 13
οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι τὰς προειρημένας ἡμέρας ἑορτάζουσιν προσαγορεύσαντες αὐτὰς
φρουρέας (ν. 1. φρουραίας, Lat. conservatores). The ‘Letter of Purim’
seems to be the book of Esther as a whole; cf. c. ix. 20.

3 Handbuch zu d. Apocrypha, i. p. 73.

4 Ryssel (in Kautzsch, Apokr., p. 212) inclines to B.c. 114, the fourth
year of Soter ii (Lathyrus).

5 See above, p. 25.

Looks of the Hebrew Canon. 259

recensions differ considerably in the Greek additions as well as
in the version. On the date of the Greek Esther the student
may consult Jacob, Das Buch Esther bet dem LXX.in ΖΑ͂ ΤΊΣ,
1890 (p. 241 ff.).

JEREMIAH. Besides the extensive transpositions already
noticed, the Lxx. text of Jeremiah differs widely from M.T. in
the way of excess and defect. The subject has received careful
treatment from Dr A. W. Streane (Double Text of Jeremiah,
Cambridge, 1896), whose verdict is on the whole in favour of
the Lxx. text, especially with regard to its omissions. He
points out that “the tendency to diffuseness, characteristic of
later Judaism...[and] likely specially to affect the writing of
Jeremiah, as a prophet whose memory was of marked interest
to the post-exilic Jews...operated much more slightly among
Egyptian Jews than with their brethren elsewhere’”; and con-
cludes that “‘the ‘omissions’ to be observed in the Lxx. of
Jeremiah, speaking generally, exist only in consequence of its
nearer approximation to the original form of the Hebrew text.”

The Greek additions, in Jeremiah, rarely exceed a few words
in a verse (see the list in Streane, p. 19). Omissions are more
numerous, and sometimes extend over several consecutive verses
of Jil; the following are the most noteworthy: viil. 10Ὁ---12, x. 6,
8, 10, xvii. I—5%, xxix. (xxxvil., LXX.) 16—20, xxxili. (xl., LXX.)
1426, xxxix. (=xlvi., LXX.) 4—13, lil. 28—30. Of these pas-
sages vill, 10Ὁ---12 seems to be based on vi. 12—15, and xxix.
16—20 on xxiv. 8—10; x. 6, 8, 10, xxxix. 4—-13 and lii. 28—30
are probably interpolations in the M.T. On the other hand it is
possible that the omission of xvii. I—5? was due to homceote-
leuton, the eye of the translator or the scribe of his archetype
having passed from yf) (xvi. 21) to ΠῚ) (xvil. 52). It is more
difficult to account for the absence from (Ὁ of the Messianic
passage xxxlil. 14—26. Dr Streane thinks that it must have
been wanting in the Hebrew text which lay before the translators.
Possibly the Messianic hope which it emphasises had less interest
for a subject of the Ptolemies than for the Jews of Palestine.

LaMENTATIONS. The Greek translator has prefixed a head-
ing which connects the book with Jeremiah (καὶ ἐγένετο... ἐκά-
θισεν Ἱερεμίας κλαίων κτλ.)

1 P.24f. Cf. A. B. Davidson.in Hastings’ D. ZB. ii. 573 ff.
17—2

260 Looks of the Hebrew Canon.

DaniEL. Like Esther the Book of Daniel in both its Greek
forms’ contains large contexts which have no equivalent in {.
There are three such passages in the Greek Daniel: (1) the
story of Susanna (Σουσάννα, Swodvva), which in the version of
Theodotion as given by the great uncials precedes Dan. i. 1;
(2) the story of Bel and the Dragon (Βὴλ καὶ Δράκων) which
follows Dan. xii. 13; (3) after Dan. iii. 23 a digression of 67
verses (ili. 24—90, Lxx., Th.), consisting of (a) the prayer of
Azarias (24—45), (0) details as to the heating of the furnace
and the preservation of Azarias and his friends (46—51), (ὦ
the Song of the Three (52—go0). In the Greek MSS. no
break or separate title divides these Greek additions from the
rest of the text, except that when Daniel is divided into
‘‘visions,” the first vision is made to begin at i. 1, Susanna
being thus excluded from the number; Bel, on the other hand,
is treated as the last of the visions (ὅρασις ιβ΄ AQ). Internal
evidence appears to shew that both these stories originally
had a separate circulation; Susanna does not form a suitable
prologue to Dan. 1.5, for v. 6 introduces Daniel as a person
hitherto unknown to the reader ; and the position of Bel as an
epilogue to the prophetic portion of the book is still less
appropriate. From the Fathers, however, it is clear that in the
earliest Christian copies of the Lxx. both Susanna and Bel
formed a part of Daniel, to which they are ascribed by Irenaeus
and Tertullian, and implicitly by Hippolytus. The remarkable
letter of Julius Africanus to Origen which throws doubt on the
genuineness of Susanna, calling attention to indications of its
Greek origin, forms a solitary exception to the general view ;
even Origen labours to maintain their canonicity.

Iren. iv. 26. 3 “et audient eas quae sunt a Daniele propheta
voces” (Szs. 56, 52 f.), iv. 5. 2 “quem et Daniel propheta...annun-
tiavit” (Bel 4f.,25). Tert. de <dololatria, 18 (Bel 4f.).. Hippol. zz

1 Vide supra, p. 46 ff.
* Susanna is perhaps made to precede Daniel because it describes
events which belong to his early life; cf. v. 44 ff. and v. 62 in a, Ὁ (Lxx.).

Books of the Hebrew Canon. 261

S75: (Lagarde, p p- 145) αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ ἱστορία γεγένηται ὕστερον,
προεγράφη δὲ τῆς Bi βλου πρώτης. Africanus, ep. ad O7 tg. θαυμάζω
€ πῶς ἔλαθέ σε τὸ μέρος τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦτο ΕΠ Chae ov nee Orig.
ad African. παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις (LXX. and Theodotion) ἔκειτο τὸ περὶ
τὴν Σωσάνναν (ws σὺ φῇς) πλάσμα, καὶ αἱ τελευταῖαι ἐν τῷ Δανιὴλ
περικοπαί. It will be noticed that the extracts from Hippolytus
and Origen shew that Susanna and Bel occupied in MSS. of the
second and third centuries the same relative positions which
they occupy in extant MSS. of the fourth and fifth.

Notwithstanding the objection shrewdly based by Africanus
on the paronomasia (cytvos, σχίζειν) in Sus. 54 f., Ball
(Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, 11. p. 330 f.) has given reasons
for believing that both Susanna and Bel once existed in an
Aramaic or a new-Hebrew original’. The Lxx. version repre-
sents Bel as a fragment of Habakkuk (cod. 87, Syro-Hex., tit.
ἐκ προφητείας ᾿Αμβακοὺμ υἱοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευΐ), an
attribution evidently due to v. 22 ff., but inconsistent with the
place of the story in the Gk. MSS.

The addition to Dan. ill. 23 is clearly Midrashic and
probably had a Semitic original’. The two hymns contained
in it found a place, as we have seen, among the Greek ecclesi-
astical Canticles, where they appear as the προσευχὴ ᾿Αζαρίου
and the ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (cod. A) or v. τῶν τριῶν παίδων
(cod. 1).

Besides these additions, which are common to both texts of
Daniel, the text of the Lxx. contains a large number of shorter
interpolations, especially in c. i1.—vi. where “the original
thread of the narrative is often lost in a chaos of accretions,
alterations, and displacements*.” The student can easily test
this statement by comparing the two versions as they stand
face to face in the Cambridge Lxx., especially in c. 111. 1—3,

46, lv. 14 (17), 19 (22), 29—34 (32—37), V. 13—23, Vi. 2—5

1 But see Kamphausen in Zucycl. Biblica, i. 1013, and comp. Roth-
stein, Afokr., p. 173 ff. On the Aramaic version of the additions from
Theodotion’s Greek cf. Schiirer?’, iii. p. 333.

= BENE 2: }Ρ..398- 3 Bevan, Daniel, p. 46.

262 Books of the Hebrew Canon.

(3—6), 12—14 (13—15), 22 (23). But the whole of this
section of the book in the Lxx. may be regarded as a para-
phrase rather than a translation of a Hebrew text. In Susanna
Theodotion has here and there a much shorter text than the
Lxx. (cf. Sus. 14—27, 42—50), and both in Susanna and Bel
the two Greek versions sometimes diverge so widely as to
exhibit the story in distinct forms which appear to represent
different traditions.

LITERATURE upon the canonical books (considered sepa-
rately or in groups).

PENTATEUCH. Amersfoordt, Dissert. philol. de variis lectio-
mtbus Holmes. Pentateuchi (1815). Hug, de Pentateuchi
vers. Alexandrina commentatio (1818). Topler, de Penta-
teucht interpretationis Alexandrinae indole (1830). Thiersch,
de Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, libri iii(1841). Frankel,
uber den Einfluss der palast. Exegese auf die alex. Herme-
meuttk (1851). Howorth, the LXX. and Samaritan v. the
Flebrew text of the Pentateuch (Academy, 1894).

GENESIS. Lagarde, Gemests Graece (1868). Deutsch, exeg.
Analecten zur Genesisiibersetzung der LXX. (in Jiid. Lite.
Blatt, 1879). Spurrell, Geneszs, ed. 2 (1898).

Exopus. Selwyn, Wotae criticae in Verstonem LX Xviralem,
Exod. t—xxtv (1856).

NUMBERS. Selwyn, WVofae, &c., Liber Numerorum (1857).
Howard, Numbers and Deuteronomy acc. to the LXX.
translated into English (1887).

DEUTERONOMY. Selwyn, Wofae, &c., Liber Deuteronomtt
(1858). Howard, of. εἶ. (1887). Driver, critical and Exe-
getical Commentary on Deut. (1895).

JosHuA. Hollenberg, Der Charakter der alex. Ubersetzung
des Buches Fosua (1876).

JUDGES. Fritzsche, Lzber Ludicum sec. LXX. interpretes
(1867). Schulte, de restitutione atgue indole genuinae ver-
stonts graece Iudicum (1889). Lagarde, Septuagintast. i.
(1891), (Jud. i—v., texts of Aand B). Moore, critical and
Exegetical Comm, on Fudges (1895). .

RUTH. Fritzsche,‘Pov@ κατὰ τοὺς ο΄ (1867).

Looks of the Hebrew Canon. 263

I,2 KINGDOMS. Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis
untersucht (1871). Woods, the light thrown by the LXX.
on the Books of Samuel (in Studia Biblica, i. 21, 1885).
Driver, Votes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel
(1890). Steinthal, zur Geschichte Sauls u. Davids (1891).
Kerber, Syrohex. Fragmente zu den beiden Samuelis-
btichern (ZAW., 1898). J. Méritan, Za Version Grecgue
des livres de Samuel, précidée Mune introduction sur la
critique textuelle (1898). H. P. Smith, Critical and exeg.
comm. on the Books of Samuel (1899).

3, 4 KINGDOMS. Silberstein, Uber den Ursprung der im
Codex Alex. u. Vat. des dritten Konigsbuches der Alex.

Ubersetzung uberlicferten Textgestalt (in ZA TW., 1893).

I, 2 CHRONICLES, EZRA-NEHEMIAH. Howorth, 7he true
LXX. version of Chr.-Esra-Neh. (in Academy, 1893).
Nestle, Warginalien (1893), p. 29 ff.

PSALMS. Sinker, Some remarks on the LX X. version of the
Psalms (1879). Baethgen, der text-kritisches Werth des

alten Ubersetz. zu ad. Psalmen (1882). Lagarde, psalterz
graect specimen (1887); psalmorum quinguagena prima
(1892). Mercati, ws palimpsesto Ambrosiano det Salmt
Esaplt (1896). Jacob, Beztrage su einer Einlettung in die
Psalmen (1. Exc. V.), (1896).

PROVERBS. Lagarde, Anumerkungen zur griech. Ubersetz.
der Proverbten (1863). Pinkuss, de syr. Ubersetzung des
Proverbien,..in threm Verhdltntss zu dem Mass. Text,
den LXX. τ. dem Targ. untersucht (ZA TW., 1894).

ECCLESIASTES. Wright, Zhe book of Koheleth (1883). Gratz,
Koheleth (1884). Klostermann (E.), de “bri Coheleth ver-
stone Alexandrina (1892). Ddllmann, aber die Gr. Uber-
setzung des Koheleth (1892). Kohl, observ. ad tnterpr. Gr.
et Lat. vet. libri Job (1834).

Jos. Bickell, De zudole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae
Fobi (1862); der urspringliche Septuaginta-text des Buches
Hob (1886). Hatch, on Origen’s revision of the Book of
Fob (in Essays, 1889). Dillmann, Text-hritisches zum B.
fjob (1890). Maude, de Peschittha zu Hiob nebst einem
Anhang tiber thr Verhdltniss zu LXX. u. Targ. (1892).
Beer, der Text des B. Hiob (1895).

ESTHER. Jacob, Esther bed dem LXX.(ZATW.,, 1890). On
the Greek additions see Ryssel in Kautzsch, Afokr., p. 193 ff.

264

Books of the Hebrew Canon.

DODECAPROPHETON. Vollers, Das Dod. der Alexandriner
(1880), continued in ZA TW., 1883-4. Stekhoven, de alex.
Vertaling van het Dod. (1887).

Hosea. Treitel, Dze alex. Ubersetzung des Buches Hosea
(1888).

MIcAH. Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt des
B. Micha (1887). Taylor, the Mass. text and the ancient
versions of Micah (1891).

OBADIAH. Seydel, Vatictntum Obadiaera...... tione habita
transl. Alex. (1869).

NAHUM. Reinke, Zur Krittzk der alt. Vers. ad. Proph.
Nahum (1867).

HABAKKUK. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (1890).
ZECHARIAH. Lowe, Comm. on Zech. (1882).

IsalaAH. Scholz, Die Masor. Text u. alex. Ubersetzung des
B. Jesaias (1880). Weiss, Peschitta zu Deuterojesaia u.
thr Verhaltniss zu M.T., LXX. τ. Targ. (1893).

JEREMIAH. Movers, De utriusque recens. Feremiae indole et
origine (1837). Wichelhaus, de Feremiae vers. Alexandr.
zndole (1847). Schulz, de leremtae textus Hebr. et Gr. dis-
crepantia (1861). Scholz, der Masor. Text u. die LXX.

Ubersetz. des B. Feremias (1875). Kuhl, das Verhdaliniss
der Massora zur Septuaginta in Feremia (1882). Work-
man, the text of Feremiah (1889). Coste, die Wetssagung-
en der Propheten Teremias (1895). Streane, the double text
of Feremiah (1896). The question of the two recensions
is dealt with at length in Bleek-Wellhausen, £z7eztung,
S τοῦ ff.

LAMENTATIONS. Goldwitzer, Ubersetzung mit Vergleichung
ad. LXX. (1828).

EZEKIEL. Merx, Der Werth der LXX. fiir die Textkritik
der AT am Exzechiel aufgezeigt (Jb. pr. Th., 1883). Cornill,
das Buch des Proph. Ezechiel (1886); cf. Lagarde in Gott.
gelerhte Anzeigen (1 June, 1886).

DANIEL. Bludau, De alex. interprete libri Daniel indole
(1891); de alex. Ubersetzung des δ. Daniel (1897). Bevan,
the Book of Daniel (1892). Lohr, textkrit. Vorarbetten zu
einer Erklarung des Buches Daniel (ZATW., 1895). On
the Greek additions see Rothstein in Kautzsch, Afokr,
Re e727 i.

CHAPTER {ἘΠῚ
BOOKS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HEBREW CANON.

Tue MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Tes-
tament include certain books which find no place in the
Hebrew Canon. The number of these books varies, as we
have seen; but the fullest collections contain the following :
1 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith,
Tobit, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, i.—iv. Maccabees.
We may add the Psalms of Solomon, a book which was
sometimes included in MSS. of the Salomonic books, or, in
complete Bibles, at the end of the Canon; and the Greek
version of Enoch, although by some accident it has been
excluded from the Greek Bible, on other grounds claims the
attention of every Biblical student. There is also a long list
of pseudepigrapha and other apocrypha which le outside both
the Hebrew and the Greek Canons, and of which in many
cases only the titles have survived. The present chapter will
be occupied by a brief examination of these non-canonical
writings of the Greek Old Testament.

1. 1 Espras. In MSS. of the Lxx. the canonical book
Ezra-Nehemiah appears under the title "Eadpas β΄, "Eodpas a’
being appropriated by another recension of the history of the
Captivity and Return’. The ‘Greek Esdras’ consists of an

1 Cod. A entitles both books [6] iepe¥s—perhaps in order to distinguish

the canonical Esdras from the ‘ Prophet’=4 Esdras—‘‘liber Esrae prophe-
tae” (cf. Clem. M. strom. iii. τ6 "Εσδρας ὁ προφήτης λέγει).

266 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

independent and somewhat free version of portions of 2
Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, broken by a long context
which has no parallel in the Hebrew Bible.
Thus 1 Esdr. i.=2 Chron. xxxv. I—xxxvi. 21; ii. I—14 =Ezra
1. ; ll. 15—25=Ezra iv. 7—24; iil. I—v. 6 is original; v. 7—7o0
= Ezra 11. I—iv. 5; vi., vil.=Ezra v., vi.; vili. I—ix. 36= Ezra vii.
I—x. 44; 1x. 37—55=Neh. vil. 73>—viii. 13. The Greek book
ends abruptly, in a manner which suggests that something has
been lost; cf. ix. 55 καὶ ἐπισυνήχθησαν with 2 Esdr. xvili. 13
συνήχθησαν οἱ ἄρχοντες κτλ. The student may compare the
ending of the Second Gospel (Mc. xvi. 8).

The context 1 Esdr. iii. 1—v. 6 is perhaps the most in-
teresting of the contributions made by the Greek Bible to
the legendary history of the Captivity and Return. We owe to
it the immortal proverb Magna est veritas et praevalet (iv. 41°),
and the story which forms the setting of the proverb is, worthy
of the occasion. But in its present form it is certainly un-
historical ; Zerubbabel (iv. 13) belonged to the age of Cyrus,
and it was Cyrus and not Darius (iv. 47 ἢ) who decreed the
rebuilding of Jerusalem. It has been suggested that “this
story is perhaps the nucleus of the whole (book), round which
the rest is grouped’.” In the grouping chronological order
has been to some extent set aside; the displacement of Ezra
iv. 7—24 (=1 Esdr. 11. 15—-25) has thrown the sequence of
events into confusion, and the scene is shifted from the court
of Artaxerxes to that of Darius, and from Darius back again
to Cyrus, with whose reign the history had started. Yet
Josephus’, attracted perhaps by the superiority of the Greek
style, uses 1 Esdras in preference to the Greek version of
the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, even embodying in his narra-
tive the legend of Zerubbabel*. He evades the difficulty

1 The future (Jraevaledzt) is without authority. In v. 38 Cod. A gives
ἰσχύσει, but in v. 41 ὑπερισχύει is unchallenged. The Latin texts have the
present in both verses.

2 H. St J. Thackeray, in Hastings’ D. B. i. p. 76.
3 ant. X. 4. 4—xXi. 4 ant. xi. 3. 2 sqq.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 267

arising out of the premature reference to Artaxerxes by sub-
stituting Cambyses*. In the early Church the Greek Esdras
was accepted without suspicion; cf. e.g. Clem. Alex. strom.
leer Θέ ἢ το \Joain. ti vis ay am! Jes). home ix tes
Cyprian, ¢f. 74. 9. Jerome, however (pracf in LEazr.), dis-
carded the book, and modern editions of the Vulgate
relegate it to an appendix where it appears as 3 Esdras, the
titles 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras being given to the two parts
of the canonical book Ezra-Nehemiah’.

The relation of the two Greek recensions of Ezra to
one another is a problem analogous to that which is presented
by the two ‘versions’ of Daniel, and scarcely less perplexing.
It has been stated with great care in Hastings’ Duectionary
of the Bible (i. p. 759 ff.), by Mr H. St J. Thackeray. He
distinguishes three views, (1) that 1 Esdras is a compilation
from the Lxx. version of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah,
(2) that it is based on an earlier Greek version of those books,
and (3) that it is an independent translation of an earlier
Hebrew text; and while refusing to regard any solution as
final, he inclines to the second. The third has recently
found a champion in Sir H. Howorth*, who adds to it the
suggestion that 1 Esdras is the true Septuagintal (1.6. the
Alexandrian) version, whilst 2 Esdras is later, and probably
that of Theodotion. Mr Thackeray is disposed to regard this
contention as “so far correct that [1 Esdras] represents the
first attempt to present the story of the Return in a Grfeek]
dress,” 2 Esdras being ‘‘a more accurate rendering of the
Heb[rew]” which was “ subsequently...required and...supplied
by what is now called the Lxx. version.”

2. WispoM ΟΕ SoLomMoNn. ‘The Greek title is Σοφία
Σαλωμώῶνος (Σαλομῶντος, Σολομῶντος, Σαλωμών). But the book

Ὁ ἘΠ. 2: τ Ξηῆ.
2 The English Article (vi) follows this numeration.
3 In the Academy for 1893.

268 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

was often cited as ἡ Sodia, ἡ πανάρετος Σοφία, a name which
it shared with Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus; see Lightfoot on
Clem. 1 Cor. 55. In the Muratorian fragment it is described
as ‘‘Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta.”
The Latin versions and fathers called the book Safientia
or Sophia Salomonis (Cyprian, O. Z.), but also simply lider
Sapientiae (Lactantius, Vulg.).

No other book in the Greek Bible is so manifestly Alex-
andrian in tone and style. Some early Christian writers
attributed it to Philo (Hieron. praef. in bros Salomonis: “non-
nulli scriptorum veterum hunc esse Iudaei Philonis affirmant”’),
and it has been ingeniously conjectured that this view found a
place in the Greek archetype of the Muratorian fragment’. But
though Wisdom has strong points of likeness to the works of
Philo, it is free from the allegorizing spirit of that writer, and
its conception of the Logos is less developed than his*. On
the other hand it clearly belongs to a period when the Jewish
scholars of Alexandria were abreast of the philosophic doctrines
and the literary standards of their Greek contemporaries. The
author is acquainted with the Stoic doctrine of the four
cardinal virtues (c. viil. 7 εἰ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαπᾷ τις, οἱ πόνοι
ταύτης εἰσὶν ἀρεταί σωφροσύνην γὰρ καὶ φρόνησιν ἐκδιδάσκει,
δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν), and with the Platonic sense of
ὕλη (Cc. Xl. 17 κτίσασα τὸν νόμον ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης" cf. Philo,
de victim. 13, de mund. opif. 12). His ideas on the subject
of preexistence (c. vill. 20), of the relation of the body to
the spirit (c. ix. 15), of Wisdom as the soul of the world
(vil. 24), are doubtless due to the same source. His language
is no less distinctly shaped upon Greek models; “no existing
work represents perhaps more completely the style of compo-

1 Ab amicis suggests ὑπὸ φίλων, and ὑπὸ φίλων has been thought to be a
corruption of ὑπὸ Φίλωνος. See Tregelles can. Mur., p. 53, and cf. Zahn,
Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, ii. p. 100.

* See this worked out by W. J. Deane, Book of Wisdom, p. 33 f.;
C. J. Bigg, Christian Platonists, p. 14 ff.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 269

sition which would be produced by the sophistic school of
rhetoric,” as it existed under the conditions of Greek life at
Alexandria. This remark may be illustrated by the peculiar
vocabulary of the book. Unusual words abound, e.g. d«yAc
dwros, ἀμβρόσιος, ἔξαλλος, ζωτικός, ἰοβόλος, κακόμοχθος, κινητικός,
κρυσταλλοειδής, ὁμοιοπαθής, παντεπίσκοπος, πολυμερής, πρωτό-
πλαστος᾽ ἀγερωχία, ἀπαύγασμα, ἀπόρροια, εἰδέχθεια, ἐνέργεια,
εὐδράνεια, ῥεμβασμός, συλλογισμός" μετακιρνᾷν, μεταλλεύειν, πρου-
φεστάναι". In some of these we can trace the influence of
philosophical thought, in others the laboured effort of the
writer to use words in harmony with the literary instincts of
the age and place to which he belonged.

The object of the book is to protect Hellenistic Jews from
the insidious influences of surrounding ungodliness and idolatry,
but while its tone is apologetic and even polemical, the point
of view is one which would commend itself to non-Jewish
readers. The philosophical tendencies and the literary style
of Wisdom favour the view that it is earlier than Philo, but
not earlier than the middle of the second century B.c. As to
the author, the words in which Origen dismissed the question
of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews may be
applied to this pre-Christian writing—ris δὲ ὃ ypawas...7d μὲν
ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν. It is the solitary survival from the wreck of
the earlier works of the philosophical school of Alexandria
which culminated in Philo, the contemporary of our Lord.

3. WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SIRACH. In cod. B the
title of this book is simply Σοφία Sepay*, but codd. AC give
the fuller and more accurate form Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ
(cf. c. L. 27 παιδείαν...ἐχάραξα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ ᾿Ιησοῦς vids

1 Westcott in Smith’s B. D. ii. 1780. Cf. Jerome, /. c. ‘‘ipse stylus
Graecam eloquentiam redolet.”’

2 See Deane, p. 27, Westcott, p. 178, Ryle, Smith’s B. D®. i. p. 185.

3 Σειράχ Ξε δ. ‘In the Hebrew Josippon (Pseudo-Josephus) the form
TV is a transliteration from the Latin” (Cowley and Neubauer, Original
Hebrew of a portion of Ecclestasticus, p. ix. n.).

2700 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

Σειράχ᾽). Jerome had seen a Hebrew Sirach which shared
with the canonical book the title of Proverbs (praef. ix libros
Salom.: “Hebraicum reperi... Parabolas (Ὁ) praenotatum”).
The later name, Zccleszasticus, which appears in Cyprian (e.g.
testim. 11. 1 “‘apud Salomonem...in Ecclesiastico 7), marks the
book as the most important or the most popular of the 477
ecclestastici—the books which the Church used for the purpose of
instruction, although they were included in the Jewish canon.

Cf. Rufin. zz sym. 38: “alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed
ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt, id est, Sapientia quae
dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui
liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Lcclestasticus
appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli sed scripturae qua-
litas cognominata est.”

The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach was the work of a
Palestinian (c. L. 27 Ἰησοῦς 6 ἸἸεροσολυμείτης), and written in
Hebrew or Aramaic; the Greek version was made by the
grandson of the writer during a visit to Alexandria (frolog.,
4. 5, 18 ff.). This visit is said to have begun ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ
καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Evepyérov BaoiWéws—words which,
simple as they seem, are involved in a double ambiguity,
since there were two Ptolemies who bore the name Euergetes,
and it is not clear whether the 38th year is to be reckoned
from the commencement of the reign of Euergetes or from
some other point of departure. But, assuming that the
Euergetes intended is Euergetes 11., i.e. Physcon, and that
the translator is counting from the time when Physcon was
associated in the government with his brother and prede-
cessor Philometor, we arrive at B.c. 132 as the ¢erminus a guo
of the Greek version, and the original may have been com-
posed some fifty years earlier.

Fragments of the original are preserved in Rabbinic

1 On ’Edeagdp (which follows Σειράχ in the Greek) see Ryssel in
Kautzsch, Afokr., p. 253. The newly-discovered Hebrew reads pow
NVD 13 ἜΝ ja pie 13, on which see Schechter, ἤεἊοηε of Ben
Stra, p. 65.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 271

literature. These are in the dialect of the Talmud; but
recent discoveries have brought to light a large part of the
book in classical Hebrew. A comparison of the Greek version
with the Hebrew text, so far as it has been printed, reveals
considerable differences, especially when the Greek text em-
ployed is that of cod. B, which was unfortunately chosen for
the purpose by the Oxford editors of the Hebrew fragments.
It must be remembered that these fragments come from a
MS. of the r1th or 12th century, which may present a cor-
rupt form of the Hebrew text; and on the other hand, that
there are considerable variations in the Greek text of Sirach,
cod. B differing widely from the majority of the MSS.’ Much
remains to be done before the text of Sirach can be settled
with any confidence. Meanwhile Professor Margoliouth has
thrown doubt upon the originality of the Hebrew fragments,
which he regards as belonging to an eleventh century version
made from the Syriac with the help of a Persian translation
from the Greek*®. At present few experts accept this theory,
but the question must perhaps be regarded as sub zudice.

In all but one’ of the known MSS. of the Greek Sirach,
there 15 a remarkable disturbance of the sequence. They pass
from ἢ. xxx. 34. tO ¢...xxxllil. 13 b, returning to the omitted
passage after xxxvi. 16a. The error seems to have arisen
from a transposition in the common archetype of the pairs of
leaves on which these two nearly equal sections were severally
written*—a fact which is specially instructive in view of the
large divergences in the Greek MSS. to which reference has

1 Cf. Hatch, .Zssays, p. 281. A group of MSS. headed by V=23
contains a considerable number of verses or stichi omitted by the rest
of our Greek authorities; see Smith, D. 8. 1. i. p. 842.

2 Origin of the original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, 1899. See on this a
letter by Prof. Driver in the Guardian, June 28, 1899, and Dr Taylor’s
remarks in Sen Siva, Ὁ. 1xx ff.

3 The exception is H-P., 248, a Vatican MS. of the 14th century. On
this MS. see Fritzsche, p. xxiii; Zenner in Z, K. 7h., 1895.

4 See Fritzsche in exeg. Handbuch, v. p. 169 f.

272. Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

been made. The true order is preserved in the Old Latin’,
Syriac, and Armenian versions.

4. JUDITH (Ἰουδείθ, -δίθ, -δηήθ, =I, cf. Gen. xxvi. 34,
where the same spellings are found in the cursives, though the
uncials exhibit ᾿Ιουδείν, Ἰουδίν), an historical romance, of which
the scene is laid in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (c. 1. 2). The
date of its composition is uncertain. A f¢erminus ad quem 15
provided by the fact that Clement of Rome knew the story
(1 Cor. 55 ᾿Ιουδὶθ ἡ paxapia...rapédwxev Κύριος ᾿Ολοφέρνην ἐν
χειρὶ θηλείας)"; and the name of Judith’s enemy has suggested a
terminus a quo, for Olophernes?* appears to be a softened form
of Orophernes, the name of a Cappadocian king, c. B.c. 158,
who may have been regarded as an enemy of the Jews*. The
religious attitude of the author of /udzth is that of the devout
Pharisee (cf. e.g. vill. 6, x. 2ff., x1. 13, xl. 7), and the work
may have been a fruit of the patriotic feeling called forth by
the Maccabean wars.

Origen’s Jewish teachers knew nothing of a Semitic original
(cf. ad African, 13: Ἔβραϊῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ od χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ
Ἰουδήθ, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις Ἔβραιστί, ὡς
ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν). Jerome, on the other hand,
not only says expressly (fraef. in Ludith): “apud Hebraeos
liber Iudith inter apocrypha (v.Z hagiographa) legitur,” but
he produced a version or paraphrase from an Aramaic source
(‘“‘ea quae intellegentia integra ex verbis Chaldaeis invenire
potui, Latinis expressi”)®. The relation of this Aramaic text
to the original of the Greek book remains uncertain.

1 On the O.L. of the Wisdoms see above, pt. i. c. IV (pp. 96, 103).

2 See Lightfoot’s note ad ἦρε. and his remarks in Clement i. p. 313 ff.

3 Not Ολοφέρνης, as is presupposed by the Latin.

4 Cf. art. Holofernes in Hastings’ D. ZB. ii. p. 402. There were,
however, earlier kings of the same name (of. czt. p. 823; cf. Schiirer, iii.
p- 169 f., n. 19).

5 See however Ball in Speaker's Comm. Apocr. i. pp. 243, 259 ff.;
and F. C. Porter in Hastings’ B. D. ii. p. 822».

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 273

The Greek Judith is said by Fritzsche’ to exist in three
recensions: (1) that of the Uncials and the majority of the
cursives, (2) that of codd. 19, 108, and (3) that which is
represented by cod. 58, and is in general agreement with
the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which are based upon a
Greek text.

5: Tosir (Τωβείτ (-βίτ, -βήτ), Τωβείθ, Tobias, liber Tobiae,
utriusgue Tobtae), a tale of family life, the scene of which is
laid at Nineveh and Ecbatana, the hero being an Israelite of
the tribe of Naphtali, who had been carried into captivity
by Shalmanezer. The book appears to have been written
for Jewish readers, and in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Jews
of Origen’s time, however, refused to recognise its authority
(Orig. de orat. 14 τῇ δὲ Tod Τωβὴτ βίβλῳ ἀντιλέγουσιν οἱ ἐκ
περιτομῆς, ὡς μὴ ἐνδιαθήκῳ), or even to include it among their
apocrypha (see above, under JUDITH); but it was accepted by
the Church (ep. ad African. 1. c. χρῶνται τῷ Τωβίᾳ at ἐκκλη-
σίαι), and there is abundant evidence of its popularity among
Christians (cf. Ps. Clem. 2 Cor. 16. 4, Polyc. ad Smyrn. to. 2,
Clem. Alex. s¢vom. il. 23, vi. 12, Orig. de orat. 11, 7m Rom.
wa 1, 5 Ce/s. v. 19, Cypr.. vestim. i. 1, 6, 62). Gnosties
shared this feeling with Catholics; the Ophites placed Tobit
among their prophetical books (Iren. 1. 30. 11).

Jerome translated Tobit as he translated Judith, from a
‘Chaldee,’ i.e. Aramaic, copy, but with such haste that the
whole was completed in a single day (praef. in Tob. “exi-
gitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad latinum
stylum tradam...feci satis desiderio vestro...et quia vicina
est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico, utriusque linguae
peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui,
et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego

1 Fritzsche, rz apocr. p. xviii sq.; Schiirer’, iii. p. 172. The text in
codd. 19, 108, is said to be Lucianie (Max Lohr in Kautzsch, AZokr.,
P- 147).

es. 18

274. Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

= 9

accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui’”). Thus, as in
the case of Judith, we have two Latin versions, the Old
Latin, based upon the Greek, and Jerome’s rough and ready
version of the Aramaic.

The Greek text itself exists in two principal recensions,
represented by the two great uncials B and x. Ince. vi. 9---
ΧΙ]. 18 Fritzsche adds a third text supplied by the cursives
44, 106, τοῦ. The relation of the two principal texts to each
other has recently been discussed by Nestle (Sepftuagintastu-
dien, iii.) and by J. Rendel Harris (in the American Journal
of Theology, iii. p. 541 ff.). Both, though on different grounds,
give preference to the text of &. Harris, however, points out
that while δὲ is probably nearer to the original Hebrew, B
may exhibit the more trustworthy text of the Alexandrian
version of the book.

6. BarucH and THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH (Bapovx, Ἔπι-
στολὴ Ἱερεμίου, | Arophetia| Baruch) were regarded by the Church
as adjuncts of Jeremiah, much in the same way as Susanna and
Bel were attached to Daniel. Baruch and the Epistle occur
in lists which rigorously exclude the non-canonical books ;
they are cited as ‘Jeremiah’ (Iren. v. 35. 1, Tert. scorp. 8,
Clem. Alex. paed. i. το, Cypr. festim. 11. 6); with Lamentations
they form a kind of trilogy supplementary to the prophecy
(Athan. ¢f. 39 Ἱερεμίας καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Bapovy, Θρῆνοι, “ExvoroAy,
Cyril. Hier. catech. iv. 33 Ἰερεμίου μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ Θρήνων καὶ
᾿Ἐπιστολῆς"). In some Greek MSS. the Epistle follows Baruch
without break, and in the Latin and English Bibles it forms
the sixth and last chapter of that book.

1 A Chaldee text, corresponding in some respects to Jerome’s Latin, is
preserved in the Bodleian, and has been edited by Neubauer (Oxford,
1878).

2 Origen, while omitting Baruch, includes the Epistle in a formal list
of the Hebrew canon (Eus. 27. 35. vi. 25 ᾿Ιερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ
᾿Επιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί).

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 275

The Epistle (ἀντίγραφον ἐπιστολῆς ἧς ἀπέστειλεν ᾿Ἱερεμίας
πρὸς τοὺς ἀχθησομένους [v. 2. ἀπαχθέντας] αἰχμαλώτους εἰς Βαβυ-
λῶνα) seems to have been suggested by Jer. xxxvi. (xxix.) 1
(cf. 2 Kings xxv. 20 ff.). It is generally recognised that this
little work was written in Greek by a Hellenist who was
perhaps anterior to the writer of 2 Maccabees (cf. 2 Macc.
ii, τ"

The problem presented by Baruch is less simple. This
book is evidently a complex work consisting of two main
sections (1. 1.—ill. 8, 1], g—v. 9)", each of which may be
subdivided (i. 1—14, historical preface; i. 15—ili. 8, confession
and prayer; lll. g—1iv. 4, exhortation; iv. 5—-v. 9, encourage-
ment). Of these subsections the first two shew traces of a
Hebrew original; cf. e.g. 1. τὸ μάννα -- ΠΣ, ii. 3 ἄνθρωπον
=O, iii. 4 τῶν τεθνηκότων = "Π (for ‘M2)*; the third has been
held* to rest on an Aramaic document, whilst the fourth is
manifestly Hellenistic.

An investigation by Professor Ryle and Dr James’ into the
relation between the Greek version of the Psalms of Solomon
-and the Greek Baruch, led them to the conclusion that Baruch
was reduced to its present form after the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus; and the tone of Bar. v. 30 seems certainly
to point to that period. On the other hand it is difficult to
understand the unhesitating acceptance of the book by Chris-
tian writers from Athenagoras (supp/. 9) until the time of

' On the first point see J. T. Marshall in Hastings’ D. 8. il. p. 579,

and on the other hand Schiirer’, iii. p. 344. Cf. Nestle, Marginathen,
- 421.

ἦ 2 In the first section the Divine Name is Κύριος or K. ὁ θεός, while in

the second it is either [6] θεός or ὁ αἰώνιος, ὁ ἅγιος. See Dr Gifford in

Speaker's Comm., Apoc., ii. f. 253.

3 “On the margin of the Syro-hexaplar text of Baruch there are three
notes by a scribe stating that certain words in i. 17 and ii. 3 are ‘not found
in the Hebrew.’”’ (A. A. Bevan in Zucycl. Brblica, i. 494.)

4 E.g. by J. T. Marshall in Hastings’ D. 8. i. p. 251.

> Psalms of the Pharisees, pref., esp. p. lxxvii.

18—2

276 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

Jerome, and its practical inclusion in the canon, if the Greek
version in its present form proceeded from a Palestinian Jew,
and was the work of the last quarter of the first century A.D.’
As to its use by the Jews there are contradictory statements in
early Christian writers, for while the Afostolical Constitutions*
inform us that the Jews read Baruch publicly on the Day of
Atonement, Jerome says expressly that they neither read it
nor had it in their possession, and his statement is confirmed
by Epiphanius.

Const. Ap. v. 20 καὶ yap καὶ viv δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Tapmuaiov
συναθροιζόμενοι τοὺς Θρήνους Ἰερεμίου avaywaokovow...cal τὸν
Βαρούχ. Hieron. praef. comm. tn Lerem. “vulgo editioni Septua-
ginta copulatur, nec habetur apud Hebraeos” ; Draef. vers. Lerem.
“‘apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur.” Epiph. de mens. et
pond. 5 οὐ κεῖνται ai ἐπιστολαὶ [Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἰερεμίου] παρ᾽ EBpaias.

7. ΒΟΟΚΒ oF MACCABEES (Μακκαβαίων a’, Bs γ΄, δ΄, Macha-
bacorum libri; τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά, Hippol. zz Dan. iv. 3; Orig. ap.
Eus. 7. £. vi. 25). The four books differ widely in origin,
character, and literary value; the bond which unites them is
merely their common connexion with the events of the age
which produced the heroes of the Hasmonaean or Maccabean*
family.

1 MaccaBeEs. This book seems to have been used by
Josephus (azz. xii. 6. τ sqq.), but it is doubtful whether he
was acquainted with its Greek form. On the other hand, the
Greek 1 Macc. was undoubtedly known to the Christian
school of Alexandria; cf. Clem. Alex. strom. 1. ὃ 123 τὸ τῶν

1 Dr Nestle points out that Baruch and Jeremiah seem to have been
translated by the same hand, unless the translator of Baruch deliberately
copied the translator of Jeremiah. Certain unusual words are common to
the two books in similar contexts, e.g. ἄβατος, ἀποστολή, δεσμώτης, πει-
νῶσα.

2 v.20. But the reference to Baruch is wanting in the Syriac Didas-
calia (Smith, D. B.? i. p. 359).

* For the name MaxxaBaios see Schiirer, Z. 7. i. p. 212 f. n.; it

belonged primarily to Judas, cf. 1 Macc. i. 4 dvéorn’Iovdas ὁ καλούμενος M.;
Joseph. azz. xii. 6 ᾿Ιούδας 6 kad. M.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 277

Μακκαβαϊκῶν, Origen ap. Eus. Zc. τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ ἅπερ ἐπιγέ-
γραπται Σαρβὴθ σαβαναιέλ (v.2. &. σαβανὲ ἔλ). Whatever may
be the meaning of this title’, it is clearly Semitic, and may be
taken as evidence that the book was circulated in a Semitic
original. Jerome appears to have seen a copy of this Hebrew
or Aramaic text (fvo/. gal. “Maccabaeorum primum librum
Hebraicum repperi”), but it has long disappeared, and the
book is now extant only in versions. The Latin and Syriac
versions are based upon the Greek; the Old Latin exists in
two recensions, one of which has taken its place in the Latin
Bible, whilst the other is preserved in a St Germain’s and a
Madrid MS.; a Lyons MS. gives a text in which the two are
mixed*.

The history of 1 Macc. covers about 40 years (B.C. 175
—132). There are indications that the writer was removed
by at least a generation from the end of his period (cf. c. xiii.
30, xvi. 23f.). He was doubtless a Palestinian Jew, but his
work would soon have found its way to Alexandria, and if it
had not already been translated into Greek, it doubtless
received its Greek dress there shortly after its arrival.

2 MaccaBEEs. The existence of a book bearing this title
is implied by Hippolytus, who quotes 1 Macc. with the
formula ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ βίβλῳ τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἀναγέγραπται, and
by Origen, if we may trust the Latin interpretation (22: ef. ad
Rom., t. viii. t “in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est”) ;
the title itself occurs in Eus. praef. ev. vill. 9 (ἡ δευτέρα τῶν
Μακκαβαίων). But the evidence goes further back. Philo
shews some knowledge of the book in Quod omnts probus liber,
§ 13, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews has a clear
reminiscence of its Greek (Heb. xi. 31 ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν
κτλ. οὗ; 2 Macc. vi. 19, 30).

1 For various attempts to interpret it see Ryle, Cavon, Ὁ. 185.
2 Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 62, 68.

278 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

The writer is described by Clement of Alexandria (stvom. v.
14) as ὃ συνταξάμενος τὴν τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἐπιτομήν. This
is precisely what he claims to do (c. ii. 23 ὑπὸ Ἰάσωνος τοῦ
Κυρηναίου δεδηλωμένα διὰ πέντε βιβλίων, πειρασόμεθα δι’ ἑνὸς
συντάγματος ἐπιτεμεῖν. The work of the Cyrenian has
perished, whilst the Alexandrian epitome survives. For Alex-
andrian the epitomist probably was; “the characteristics of the
style and language are essentially Alexandrian...the form of
the allusion to Jason shews clearly that the compiler was not
his fellow countryman’.” ‘‘The style is extremely uneven ; at
times it is elaborately ornate (111. 15-39, ν. 20, vil. 12—16,
23—28, vii. &c.); and again, it is so rude and broken as to
seem more like notes for an epitome than a finished composi-
tion’ (xiii. 19—26) ; indeed it is difficult to believe that such
a passage as the one last cited can have been intended to go
forth in its present form. That the work never had a Semitic
original was apparent to Jerome (2γοΐ. gal. “‘secundus Graecus
est, quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest”). The
vocabulary is extraordinarily rich in words of the later literary
Greek, and the book betrays scarcely any disposition to
Hebraise’.

The second book of Maccabees presents a striking contrast
to the first. Covering a part of the same period (B.C. 175
—160), it deals with the events in a manner wholly different.
In 1 Maccabees we have a plain and usually trustworthy
history; in 2 Maccabees a partly independent but rhetorical
and inaccurate and to some extent mythical panegyric of the
patriotic revolt®.

3 Maccasegs. A third book of Μακκαβαικά finds a place

1 Westcott in Smith’s D. 8.1 11, p. 175.

2 See the list of words given by Westcott, 7. c. i. and in Smith’s D. B.7i.
and Apocrypha.

3 So Luther, in his preface to 2 Macc.: ‘so billig das erste Buch sollte
in die Zahl der heiligen Schrift genommen sein, so billig ist dies andere
Buch herausgeworfen, obwohl etwas Gutes darinner steht.”

Looks not included in the Hebrew Canon. 279

in some Eastern lists (can. Apost., Niceph. stichom.). A Greek
book under that title is found in codd. AV and a few cursives’.
There is a Syriac version, but no Latin, nor is the book
mentioned in any Western list, although the stichometry of
Cod. Claromontanus implies a knowledge of its existence, for
it mentions a fourth book. Similarly cod. 8 passes from the
first book to the fourth, whether the omission of the second
and third is due to the deliberate judgement of the scribe or
to his want of an archetype.

A more exact description of 3 Maccabees would be that
which it seems to have borne in some circles—the Ptolemaica’.
The story belongs to the reigns of Ptolemy Philopator (B.c. 222
—z205), and the scene is laid at Alexandria. The king, in-
furiated by the refusal of the Jerusalem priesthood to admit
him to the Holy of Holies, returns to Egypt with the intention
of avenging himself on the Alexandrian Jews; but by the
interposition of Providence his plans are defeated, and he
becomes, like Darius in Daniel and Artaxerxes in Esther, the
patron of the people he had purposed to destroy.

There are reasons for believing that this romance rests
upon some historical basis. “The author...evidently has good
knowledge of the king and his history...the feast kept by the
Egyptian Jews at a fixed date [c. vil. 11] cannot be an inven-
tion...that Philopator in some way injured the condition of the
Jews, and that they were concerned in the insurrection of the
nation, seems very probable*.” Moreover Josephus has a
somewhat similar tale drawn from another source, and con-

1 Fritzsche has used codd. 19, 44, 55, 62, 64, 71, 74; 93-

2 In the Pseudo-Athanasian syzopsis where the MSS. give Μακκαβαικὰ
δ΄, Πτολεμαικά. Credner proposed to read M. καὶ (5) Πτολ. An ex-
planation of the existing reading attempted by Fabricius, cod. pseud. epigr.
V. 7.1. p. 1164, is hardly to be considered satisfactory. Zahn (Gesch. d.
NTlichen Kanons, ii. p. 317) suggests πολεμικά, but this is more ingenious
than convincing.

3 Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 267 ff.

280 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

nected with another reign’ (4 “42. 11. 5). The present book
is doubtless Alexandrian, and of relatively late origin, as its
inflated style, “loaded with rhetorical ornament’,” sufficiently
testifies. Some critics (Ewald, Hausrath, Reuss*) would place
it in the reign of Caligula, but the knowledge of earlier
Alexandrian life which it displays points to an earlier date,
perhaps the first century B.c.

4 MaccaBees. According to Eusebius and Jerome this
book was the work of Josephus‘.

Fs. ἘΣ Wl.) 10 πεπόνηται δὲ καὶ ἄλλο οὐκ ἀγεννὲς “σπού-
δασμα τῷ ἀνδρὶ (sc. Ἰωσήπῳ) περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ, ὅ τινες
Μακκαβαϊκὸν ἐπέγραψαν τῷ τοὺς ἀγῶνας τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὕτω καλου-
μένοις Μακκαβαϊκοῖς συγγράμμασιν ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείας
ἀνδρισαμένων Ἑβραίων περιέχειν. Hieron. de virr. zl. 13 “alius
quoque libro eius qui inscribitur περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ
valde elegans habetur, in quo et Maccabeorum digesta martyria”
(cf. c. Pelag. ii. 5).

The book is a philosophical treatise upon the question,
εἰ αὐτοδέσποτός ἐστιν τῶν παθῶν ὃ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός. But the
greater part of it’ 15 occupied by ἃ rhetorical panegyric upon
the Jewish martyrs, Eleazar, and the seven brothers and their
mother, who perished in the Maccabean troubles. This
portion appears to be based on 3 Macc. vi. 18, vil. 42,
which it amplifies with an extraordinary wealth of language
and a terribly realistic picture of the martyrs’ sufferings.
The rhetoric of the writer, however, is subordinated to his
passion for religious philosophy. In philosophy he is a pupil
of the Stoics; like the author of the Wisdom of Solomon
he holds fast by the doctrine of the four cardinal Virtues
(i. 18 τῆς δὲ σοφίας εἰδέαι καθιστᾶσιν φρόνησις Kai δικαιοσύνη

1 That of Euergetes II. (Physcon) ; cf. Mahaffy, p. 381.

2 Westcott in Smith’s D. 8. ii. p. 179.

3 Schiirer?, iii. p. 365.

4 The same belief is expressed by the fact that the book is found
in some MSS. of Josephus. See Fabricius-Harles, v. 26 f.

5 Viz. Ὁ. II. 19, to the end.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 281

καὶ ἀνδρία καὶ σωφροσύνη), and he sternly demands that the
πάθη shall be kept under restraint by the power of Reason.
In religion he is a legalist with Pharisaic tendencies; he
believes in future punishment (ix. 9, xiii. 15), in the eternal
life which awaits the righteous (xv. 3, xvil. 5, xvili. 23), and
in the atonement for sin which is made by voluntary sacrifice
(vis 0 2511. 22).

The style of 4 Macc. abounds in false ornament and
laboured periods. But on the whole it is “truly Greek’,”
and approaches nearer than that of any other book in the
Greek Bible to the models of Hellenic philosophy and rhetoric.
It does not, however, resemble the style of Josephus, and
is more probably a product of Alexandrian Judaism during
the century before the fall of Jerusalem.

8. To the books of the Hebrew canon (ra ἐνδιάθηκα, τὰ
εἰκοσιδύο) and the ‘external’ books (τὰ ἔξω), which on the
authority of Jerome the reformed Churches of the West have
been accustomed to call the Apocrypha, some of the ancient
lists add certain apocrypha properly so named. Thus the
catalogue of the ‘Sixty Books,’ after reciting the canonical
books of the O. and N. Testaments, and ra περὶ (deg. πέρα) τούτων
ἔξω (the two Wisdoms, 1—4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit),
continues: Καὶ ὅσα ἀπόκρυφα: “Addu , Evwox, Λάμεχ, Πατριάρχαι,
Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ, ᾿Ελδάδ, Διαθήκη Μωυσέως, ᾿Ανάληψις Μωυσέως,
Ψαλμοὶ Ξολομώντος, Ἤλίου ἀποκάλυψις, Ἢ αίου ὅρασις, Sopoviov
ἀποκάλυψις, Ζαχαρίου ἀποκάλυψις, Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις. The
Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis and the Stichometry of Nice-
phorus count among the ἀπόκρυφα τῆς παλαιᾶς, together with
certain of the above, “ABpaap...Bapovy, ᾿Αββακούμ, "ELexinA,
καὶ Δανιήλ, ψευδεπίγραφαθ. Ebed Jesu mentions also a book
called Traditions of the Elders, the History of Asenath, and

1 Westcott in Smith’s D. B.1 ii. p. 181.

2 On this list see Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii. p. 289 ff. and
M. R. James, Zestament of Abraham, p. 7 ff. (in Texts and Studies, ii. 2).

282 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

even the Fables of Aesop disguised under the title Proverbs
of Josephus. Besides these writings the following are cen-
sured in the Gelasian xotitia librorum apocryphorum: Liber de
jiliabus Adae Leptogenesis, Poenitentia Adae, Liber de Vegia
nomine gigante, gut post diluvium cum dracone...pugnasse perht-
betur, Testamentum Lob, Poenitentia Iambre et Mambre, Solo-
monis tnterdictio.

Though the great majority of these writings at one time
existed in Greek, they were not admitted into collections of
canonical books. A partial exception was made in favour
of the Psatms oF SoLomon. This book is mentioned among
the ἀντιλεγόμενα of the O.T. in the Stichometry of Nice-
phorus and in the Pseudo-Athanasian Syxopszs. An earlier
authority, the compiler of the catalogue at the beginning of
Codex Alexandrinus, allows it a place in his list, although
after the final summary of the books of the Old and New
Testaments’. If the Codex itself contained these Psalms, they
have perished together with a portion of Ps. Clem. ad Cor. iz.,
the book which in the list immediately precedes them. It has
been conjectured? that they once had a place in Cod. Sinai-
ticus, which like Cod. A has lost some leaves at the end of
the N.T. Their absence from the other great uncials and
from the earlier cursives may be due to the influence of the
Laodicean canon (lix.), ὅτι οὐ det ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι

ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ
τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης. Happily the Psalms survived
in private collections, and find a place in a few relatively

1 The catalogue ends omoy BiBAla .. | and below, yadmol CoAo-

MO)NTOC | IH.

2 By Dr J. R. Harris, who points out (Johns Hopkins Univ. Circular,
March 1884) that the six missing leaves in δὲ between Barnabas and Her-
mas correspond with fair accuracy to the space which would be required for
the Psalms of Solomon.

3 Cf. Babr. af. Beveregii Synod. p. 480 εὑρίσκονταί τινες ψαλμοὶ πέρα
τοὺς py’ ψαλμοὺς τοῦ Δαβὶδ λεγόμενοι τοῦ Σολομωντος... τούτους οὖν dvoud-
σαντες οἱ πατέρες ἰδιωτικούς.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 283

late cursives of the poetical and the Sapiential books of the
O.T., where they follow the Davidic Psalter or take their place
among the writings attributed to Solomon’.

The Psalms of Solomon are shewn by their teaching and
spirit to be the work of the Pharisaic school, and internal
evidence connects them with the age of Pompey, whose death
appears to be described in Ps. ii. 30 ff.” The question of the
date of the Greek version turns upon the nature of the relation
which exists between the Greek Psalms and the Greek Book of
Baruch. Professor Ryle and Dr James, who regard Baruch
iv. 36—v. g (Greek) as based on the Greek of Ps. Sol. xi,
are disposed to assign the version of the Psalms to the last
decade of the first century B.c.*. They observe that the Mes-
slanic passages contain ‘‘no trace of Christian influence at
work.” On the other hand there are interesting coincidences
between the Greek phraseology of the Psalter and that of
the Magnificat and other Lucan canticles*.

One other apocryphon of the Greek Old Testament claims
attention here. The Book oF ENocH has since 1838 been
in the hands of scholars in the form of an Ethiopic version
based upon the Greek. But until 1892 the Greek version
was known only through a few fragments—the verse quoted
by St Jude (f 14 f.), a brief tachygraphic extract in cod.
Vat. gr. 1809, published in facsimile by Mai (patr. nov.
biblioth. i1.), and deciphered by Gildemeister (ZDJG., 1855,
Ρ. 622 ff.), and the excerpts in the Chronographia of Georgius
Syncellus®>, But in 1886 a small vellum book was found in

1 In the latter case they go with the two Wisdoms in the order Sap.,
Ps. Sol., Sir. or (in one instance) Sap., Sir., Ps. Sol.

2 Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees, p. x\ ff., xliv ff. Schiirer?,
ill. p. 152 £.

Marie and James, p. Ixxii ff. On the date see W. Frankenberg, de
Datierung der Psalmen Salomos (Giessen, 1896).

4 Ryle and James, p. xc ff.

5 These may be conveniently consulted in the Corpus historiae By-
santinae, t. 1, where they are edited by W. Dindorf.

284 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

a Christian grave in Akhmim (Panopolis), in Upper Egypt,
which contained zzter alia the first thirty-two chapters of
Enoch in Greek—nearly the whole of the first section of the
book. This large fragment was published by M. Bouriant
in the ninth volume of Mémoires publics par les membres de
la mission archéologique Francaise au Caire (Paris, 1* fasc.
1892; 3° fasc. 1893).

The newly recovered Greek belongs to the oldest part of
Enoch, which may be regarded as in the main a Palestinian
work of the second century B.c.’. The Greek version is the
parent of the Ethiopic, and of pre-Christian date, since it
was in the hands of St Jude. ‘Thus it possesses a strong
claim upon the attention of the student of Biblical Greek,
while the book itself possesses an almost unique value as an
exposition of Jewish eschatology.

The Greek version of Enoch seems to have been circulated
in the ancient Church; cf. Barn. 4. 16; Clem. Alex. ec/. proph.
2° Orig. de princ. 13. 3; ἅν. 35, hom in Num. 28/°2) ie
_ book was not accepted by authority (Orig. ας Cels. v. 54
ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ov πάνυ φέρεται ws θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα
τοῦ Ἕνωχ βιβλία : in Τοδηη. t. vi. 25 εἴ τῳ φίλον παραδέχεσθαι
ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλίον. Hieron. de virr. Wl. 4 ‘apocryphus
est”), but opinion was divided, and Tertullian was prepared to
admit the claims of a writing which had been quoted in a
Catholic Epistle (de cult. faem. 1. 3 “scio scripturam Enoch
...non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Judaicum
admittitur...a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod
pertineat ad nos...eo accedit quod E. apud Iudam apostolum
testimonium possidet).” In the end, however, it appears to
have been discredited both in East and West, and, if we
may judge by the almost total disappearance of the Greek
version, it was rarely copied by Catholics even for private

1 See Schiirer*, iii. p. 166 ff.

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 285

study. A mere chance has thrown into our hands an excerpt
made in the eighth or ninth century, and it is significant that
in the Akhmim book Enoch is found in company with frag-
ments of a pseudonymous Gospel and Apocalypse’.

LITERATURE of the non-canonical Books.

I Espras. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, δὲ 363—4; Kénig,
Einlettung, Ὁ. 146; Dahne, Gesch. Darstellung, iii. p. 116 ff. ;
Nestle, Marginalien, Ὁ. 23 f.; Bissell, Apocrypha of the O. T.,
po? 1.5) ΕΠ ot, J. Thackeray,:a77.-1, Esdras τη, Hastings), 2. Ὁ.
1.; Schtirer’, i. p. 326 ff.; Biichler, das apokr. Ezra-Buchs
(UGWF., 1897). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons,
t. v.; Fritzsche, /z6rz apocr. V. T. Gr. pp. viii.—x., I—30;
Lagarde, lzbr. V. T. canon., p. i. (Lucianic); O. 7. zn Greek, ii.
(text of B, with variants of A); W. J. Moulton, ber die Uber-
lieferung des texthkrit. Werth der dritten Ezra-Buchs, ZATW.,
1899, 2 (p. 209 ff.). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch 5.
a. Apokr.,i.; Lupton, in Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, i.; Guthe,
in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. | ff.

WISDOM OF SOLOMON. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 727. De Wette-
Schrader, Lehrbuch, δὲ 378—382; Konig, Einlectung, Ὁ. 146;
Dahne, Darstellung, 1. p. 152 ff.; Westcott, in Smith’s D. BZ, iii.
p. 1778 ff.; Drummond, Philo Fudaeus, i. p. 177 ff. Text and
apparatus : Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, ΖΖόγ. apocr. V. T.
ΟΣ ΠΡ. xxiv. £522 πὸ; ἡ. 7.7% Greek, ii. p. 604, ff (text of B,
variants of SAC). Commentaries: Bauermeister, comm. in Sap.
Sol. (1828); Grimm, exeg. Handbuch, vi.; Reusch, obser vationes
Criticae in libr. Sapientiae (Friburg, 1858); Deane, the Book of
Wisdom (Oxf., 1881); Farrar, in Speakers Comm., Apocr., 1. ;
Siegfried, in Kautzsch, Apfokryphen, p._ 476 ff. On the Latin
version see Thielmann, de /ateinische Ubersetzung des Buches
der Weisheit (Leipzig, 1872).

1 A collection of Greek O. T. apocrypha might perhaps include,
amongst other remains of this literature, the Rest of the Words of Baruch
(ed. J. Rendel Harris), the Apocalypse of Baruch (ed. M. R. James), the
Testament of Abraham (ed. M. R. James), parts of the Oracula Sibyllina
(ed. A. Rzach), the Zestaments of the XII Patriarchs (ed. Sinker), the
Latin Ascension of Isaiah (ed. O. von Gebhardt, with the new Greek frag-
ments), and perhaps also the Latin versions of certain important books
which no longer survive in the Greek, e.g. 4 Esdras (ed. R. L. Bensly), the
Assumption of Moses (ed. R. H. Charles), the Book of Jubilees, ἣ λεπτὴ
Γένεσις (ed. R. H. Charles).

28 6 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

WISDOM OF THE SON OF SIRACH. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 718;
De Wette-Schrader, ὃ 383 ff.; K6nig, p. 145. Westcott and
Margoliouth, “ccleszasticus, in Smith’s D. B.* i. 841; Schiirer?,
111.. p. 157 ff. (where a full list of recent monographs will be
found). Text with apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche;
Ο. T. in Greek, il. (text of B, variants of SAC); cf. J. K. Zenner,
Ecclesiasticus nach cod. Vat. 346 (Ζ. K. Th., 1895). Bretschnei-
der, “éber 7651 Siracidae Gr., Ratisbon, 1806. Cf. Hatch, Essays,
Ρ. 296 ff. Nestle, Margtnalien (1893), p. 48 ff. Klostermann,
Analecta, p. 26f. Commentaries: Bretschneider (ut supra);
Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, v.; Edersheim in Speaker's Comm.,
Afpocr. 11. ; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. 230 ff.

On the newly discovered Hebrew text with relation to the
versions see Cowley and Neubauer, 7he original Hebrew of a
portion of Ecclestasticus, Oxford, 1897; Smend, das hebr. Frag-

ment der Weishett des Jesus Sirach, 1897; Halévy, Etude sur la
partie du texte hébreu del Ecclésiastiqgue (Paris, 1897); Schlatter,
das neu gefundene hebr. Stick des Strach (Giterslob, 1897);
Lévi, L’Eccléstastigue, Paris, 1898; C. Taylor, in FQOR., 1898;
D. S. Margoliouth, ¢he origin of the ‘Original Hebrew’ of Eccle-
stasticus, Oxford, 1899; S. Schechter and C. Taylor, the Wisdom
of Ben Stra, Cambridge, 1899; S. Schechter, in FQAR. and
Cr. &., Oct. 1899; various articles in Lap. Times, 1899; A. A.
Bevan in ¥7/ZSz., Oct. 1899.

JUDITH. Fabricius-Harles, ili, p. 736; De Wette-Schrader,
§ 373 ff.; Konig, p. 145 f.; Nestle, Warginalien, p. 43 ff.; West-
cott-Fuller in Smith’s D. 2.5. 1. i. p. 1850 ff.; F. C. Porter in
Hastings’ D..#. il. p.. .822.ff.; Schirer®, iif. p. , 167. Vemieame
apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, p. xviii f.,
165 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, 11. (text of B, variants of NA).
Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, ii.; Wolff, das Buch
Fudith...erkldrt (Leipzig, 1861); Scholz, Commentar zum B.
Fudith (1887, 1896); cf. Ball in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.;
Lohr, in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. 147 ff.

ToBIT. Fabricius-Harles, iii. 738; De Wette-Schrader, ὃ 375 ff.;
Konig, p. 145 f.; Westcott in Smith’s D. BZ. iii. p. 1523;
Schirer®, 111. p.174. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons,
γι: Fritzsche, pp. xvi ff., 108 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii.
(texts of B and δὲ, with variants of A); Reusch, /zdellus Tobit e
cod. Sin, editus (Bonn, 1870); Neubauer, the Book of Tobit: a
Chaldee text (Oxford, 1878). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg.
Handbuch, Apokr., ii.; Reusch, das Buch Tobias iibersetzt u.
erklart (Friburg, 1857); Sengelmann, das Buch Tobits erklart
(Hamburg, 1857); Gutberlet, das Buch Tobias tibersetzt τε. erklart

Books not included in the Hebrew Canon. 287

(Munster, 1877); Scholz, Commentar z. Buche Tobias (1889) ;
Rosenmann, Studien z. Buche Tobczt (Berlin, 1894); J. M. Fuller
in Speaker's Comm., Apfocr., i.; Lohr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen,
p.135 ff. Cf. E. Nestle, Septwagintastudien, iii. (Stuttgart, 1899);
J. R. Harris in American Fournal of Theology, July, 1899.

BARUCH and EPISTLE. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 734 f.; De Wette-
Schrader, § 389 ff.; Konig, p. 485 f.; Westcott-Ryle, in Smith’s
D. B.* i. p. 359 ff.; J. T. Marshall, in Hastings’ D. B. i. p. 249 ff.
li. p. 579 ff.; Schiirer?, ii. p. 338 ff.; A. A. Bevan, in Ezcycl. Bib-
lica, i. 492 ff. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.;

Fritzsche, pp. xv f., 93 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii. (text

of B, with variants of AQT). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg.

Flandbuch, Apokr., i.; Reusch, Erkldrung des Buchs Baruch

(Freiburg, 1853); Havernick, de “bro Baruch (Konigsberg,

1861); Kneucker, das Buch Baruch (Leipzig, 1879); ἃ. H.

Gifford in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii.; Rothstein, in Kautzsch,

Apokryphen, p. 213 ff.

1—4 MaccaBkEEs. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p. 745 ff.; De Wette-
Schrader, § 365 ff.; Konig, p. 482 ff.; Westcott in Smith’s D. 5.1
ii. p. 170 ff.; Schirer%, iii. pp. 139 ff., 359 ff, 393 ff.; Rosenthal,
das erste Makkabéerbuch (Leipzig, 1867); Willrich, /uden x.
Griechen vor der makkab. Erhebung (1895); Freudenthal, de
Fl. Josephus beigelegte Schrift. (Breslau, 1869); Wolscht, de Ps.
Josephi oratione...(Marburg, 1881). Text and apparatus: Holmes
and Parsons, v. (books i.—iii.); Fritzsche, pp. xix ff., 203 ff.;

Old Testament in Greek, 111. (text of A with variants of δὲ, in

books i. and iv. and v.). Commentaries: Keil, Kom. ziber dte

Biicher der Makk. (Leipzig, 1875); Bensly-Barnes, 4 A/accabees

in Syriac (Cambridge, 1895); Grimm in Fritzsche’s exeg. Hand-

buch, Apokr., 111... iv.; Bissell, in Lange-Schaff’s Comm.; G.

Rawlinson in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., 11. (books i.—ii.); Fair-

weather and Black, 1 Maccabees (Cambridge, 1897); Kautzsch

and Kamphausen, in Kautzsch, Afokryphen, p. 24 ff.

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. The student will find fuller information on
this subject in Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus V. T. (Ham-
burg, 1722): Herzog-Plitt, xii. p. 341 ff. (art. by Dillmann on
Pseudepigrapha des A. T.); Deane, Pseudepigrapha (Edinburgh,
1891); J. H. Thompson, @ critical review of apocalyptical Jewish
literature (N. Y., 1891); Smith’s and Hastings’ 4&zble Diction-
artes; Schurer*, iii. pp. 150 ff., 190 ff.; the works of Credner
and Zahn; M. R. James, Zestament of Abraham in Texts
and Studies (11. 11. p. 7 ff.); Lucyclopaedia Biblica, artt. Afo-

1 A collation of the Syriac 4 Macc. with the Greek has been contributed
by Dr Barnes to O. 7. tz Greek”, vol. ili. (p. goo ff.).

288 Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

calyptic Literature and. Apocrypha (i. 213-58). For the litera-
ture of the several writings he may refer to Strack, Ezn/eztung,
p- 230 ff. In Kautzsch’s Apokr. τε. Pseudepigraphen the follow-
ing O. T. pseudepigrapha are included: Martyrdom of Isatah
(Beer), Szbylline Oracles, iii.—v., and prooem. (Blass), Ascenston
of Moses (Clemen), Apocalypse of Moses (Fuchs), Apocalypse of
Esdras (Gunkel), Testament of Naphtali, Heb. (Kautzsch), Book
of Jubilees (Littmann), Apocalypse of Baruch (Ryssel), Testa-
ments of XII Patriarchs (Schnapp). On the eschatology of this
literature see Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Fewish and Chris-
tzan (London, 1899).

PSALMS OF SOLOMON. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr.V.T.,i. p. 914 ff.;
Fritzsche, br. apocr. V. T. gr., pp. xxv ff., 569 ff; Ryle and
James, Psalms of the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1891); O. v. Geb-
hardt, die Psalmen Salomo’s (Leipzig, 1895); Old Testament in
Greek? (Cambridge, 18991). Ryle and James’ edition is specially
valuable for its full Introduction, and Gebhardt’s for its inves-
tigation into the pedigree and relative value of the MSS. On
the date see Frankenberg, de Datierung der Psalmen Salomos
(Giessen, 1896). An introduction and German version by Dr R.
Kittel will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 127 ff.

Book OF ENOCH. Laurence, Librz Enoch versio aethiopica (Ox-
ford, 1838); Dillmann, Lzber Henoch aethiopice (Leipzig, 1851);
Bouriant, Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Enoch...in Meé-
moires, &c. (see above); Lods, 16 Livre a’Enoch (Paris, 1892);
Dillmann, zber den neugefundenen gr. Text des Henoch-Buches
(Berlin, 1892); Charles, the Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1893), and
art. in Hastings’ D.B. 1. p. 705 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii.”
(Cambridge, 1899). For a fragment of a Latin version see James,
Apocr. anecdota in Texts and Studies, ii. 3, Ὁ. 146 ff. An intro-
duction and German version by Dr G. Beer will be found in
Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 217 ff.

1 The text in the Cambridge manual Lxx., which is that of cod. Vat.
gr. 336, and is accompanied by an apparatus and a brief description of the
MSS., can be had, together with the text of Enoch, in a separate form.

SHAPER TV,

THE GREEK OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

1. No thorough treatment of the Greek idiom of the
Lxx. is known to exist. Two ancient treatises upon the
dialect of Alexandria, by Irenaeus (Minutius Pacatus) and
Demetrius Ixion’, have unhappily disappeared. In modern
times the ground has been broken by Sturz and Thiersch’,
and within the last few years Deissmann* has used the recently
discovered papyri of Egypt to illustrate the connotation or
the form of a number of Septuagint nouns and verbs. Much has
also been done by Dr H. A. A. Kennedy* and the Abbé J. Viteau®
in the way of determining the relation of Septuagint Greek to the
classical and later usage, and to the Greek of the N.T.; and the
N.T. grammars of Winer-Moulton, Winer-Schmiedel, and Blass
contain incidental references to the linguistic characteristics of
the Alexandrian version. But a separate grammar of the Greek
Old Testament is still a real want, and the time has almost
come for attempting to supply it. Biblical scholars have now at

1 See Fabricius-Harles, vi. p. 193 f. Both writers lived in the time of
Augustus.

2 Sturz’s treatment of the dialect of Alexandria and Egypt needs to be
checked by more recent researches, but it is still the most complete work
upon the subject. Thiersch deals directly with the Greek of the Lxx., but
he limits himself to the Pentateuch.

3 Bibelstudien (1895), and Neue Brbelstudien (1897).

4 Sources of N.T. Greek (1895).

5 Etude sur le Grec du N.T. (1896).

aS. 19

200 The Greek of the Septuagint.

their disposal a store of trustworthy materials in the Oxford
Concordance, and the larger Cambridge Septuagint will supply
an accurate and sufficient textual guide. On the basis of
these two works it ought to be possible for the workers of
the twentieth century to prepare a satisfactory grammar and
lexicon’. Meanwhile in this chapter nothing more can be
attempted than to set before the beginner some of the lin-
guistic problems presented by the Greek of the Septuagint,
and to point out the chief features which distinguish it from
other forms of the language.

2. The student who enters upon this subject with some
knowledge of the Greek New Testament must begin by
reminding himself of the different conditions under which
the two parts of the Greek Bible were produced. The Greek
Old Testament was not like the New Testament the work of
a single generation, nor are its books as homogeneous in their
general character. ‘The Septuagint is a collection of transla-
tions interspersed with original Greek works, the translations
belonging partly to the third century B.c., partly to the second
and first, and the original works chiefly to the end of this
period. Even in the case of the Pentateuch we are not at
liberty to assume that the translators worked at the same time
or under the same circumstances. ‘These considerations com-
plicate our enquiry, and lead us to expect in the Lxx. great
varieties of manner and language. In the earlier work we
shall meet with the colloquial Greek which the Jews learnt
to speak shortly after their settlement in Egypt. Later trans-
lations will approximate to the literary style of the second
century, except in cases where this tendency has been kept
in check by a desire to follow the manner of the older

1 A lexicon was planned in 1895 by a Cambridge Committee, but the
work is suspended for the present. There is some reason to hope that
a Grammar may before long be undertaken by a competent scholar.

The Greek of the Septuagint. 291

books. Lastly, in the original writings, many of which are
relatively late, and in which the writers were free from the
limitations that beset the translator, the Greek will be nearly
identical with that which was written by the Jewish-Alexan-
drian historians and philosophers of the time.

3. We begin by investigating the literary conditions
under which both the translators and the writers lived at
Alexandria.

In the middle of the second century B.c. Polybius* found
Alexandria inhabited by three races, the native Egyptians,
who occupied the site of the old seaport Rhacotis, the mer-
cenary class (τὸ μισθοφορικόν), who may be roughly identified
with the Jews, and the Greeks of the Brucheion, a mixed
multitude claiming Hellenic descent and wedded to Hellenic
traditions (εἰ μιγάδες, Ἕλληνες ὁμοῦ ἀνέκαθεν ἦσαν, καὶ ἐμέ-
μνηντὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθους). This fusion of various
elements in the Greek population of the city must have ex-
isted from the first. The original colony was largely made up
of the veterans of Alexanders Macedonian army, volunteers
from every part of Greece, and mercenaries from the Greek
colonies of Asia Minor, and from Syria. Even in the
villages of the Fayfiim, as we now know, by the side of the
Macedonians there were settlers from Libya, Caria, Thrace,
Illyria, and even Italy*, and Alexandria presented without
doubt a similar medley of Hellenic types. Each class
brought with it a dialect or idiom of its own. The Mace-
donian dialect, e.g., is said to have been marked by certain
phonetic changes*, and the use of barbarous terms such as

1 ap. Strab. 797.

* Mahaffy in Flinders Petrie Papyri,i. p. 42. Cf. Empire of the Pto-
lemtes, p. 178 f.

3 As the change of @ into β (Βερενίκη for Pepevixn, &c.), cf. Sturz, de
dial. Mac., p. 51, n.

19—2

292 The Greek of the Septuagint.

ἀδή = οὐρανός, βεθύ᾽ = ἀήρ, δανός = θάνατος, and of Greek words
in unusual senses, as παρεμβολή, ‘camp,’ ῥύμη, street”. Some
of these passed into the speech of Alexandria, and with them
were echoes of the older dialects—Doric, Ionic, Aeolic—
and other less known local varieties of Greek. A mongrel
patots, ἡ ᾿Αλεξανδρέων διάλεκτος, as it was called in the title of
the treatise of Demetrius Ixion, arose out of this confusion
of tongues.

No monument of the Alexandrian ‘ dialect’ remains, unless
we may seek it in the earlier books of the Alexandrian Greek
Bible. We have indeed another source from which light
is thrown on the popular Greek of Egypt under the earlier
Ptolemies. A series of epistolary and testamentary papyri
has recently been recovered from the Fayfim, and given to
the world under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy? ;
a similar collection has been issued at Berlin*, The Greek of
these documents is singularly free from dialectic forms, owing
perhaps to local circumstances, as Professor Mahaffy suggests ;
but the vocabulary has, in common with the Lxx., many
striking words and forms, some of which are rare elsewhere.

The following list has been formed from the indices to the
Flinders Petrie collection: ἀναδεν Spas, ἀναφάλακρος, ἀναφάλαντος,
ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ, ἀρχιτεκτονεῖν, ἄχυρον, βασίλισσα, γένημα, διῶρυξ,
ἐπιγονή, ἐργοδιώκτης, εὐίλατος, ἐφιδεῖν, ἐφιορκεῖν, θέριστρον, ὀλιγο-
ψυχεῖν, ὀχύρωμα, ὀψώνιον, παιδίον, παραδείξαι, 7 παρεπίδημος, περι-
δέξιον, περιοδεύειν, πράκτωρ, πρεσβύτεροι, στενοχωρεῖν, χῶμα. The
Berlin papyri yield many other such words, e.g. davapérpyots,
γλύμμα, δικαίωμα, ἱεροψάλτης, ἱ ἱματισμός, καταλοχισμὸς, κτηνοτρόφος,
μισοπονηρία, ὁλοσχερήῆς, συμπλήρωσις, ὑπομνηματισμός.

1 A list of these words, collected from Hesychius and other lexicogra-
phers, may be seen in Sturz, p. 34 ff.

? From Q. Curtius (De rebus gestis Alexandri M., vi. 9. 36) it appears
that the Macedonian and the native Greeks understood one another with
difficulty.

3 In the Cunningham Memoirs for 1891, 93, edited by Prof. Mahaffy.

“ Agyptische Urkunden aus den kinigl. Museen zu Berlin. Griechische
Urk. i. ii. (1895). Further contemporary illustrations of Alexandrian
Greek may be found in Wilcken’s Griechische Ostraka (1899).

The Greek of the Septuagint. 293

The following letter of the time of Philadelphus will serve
to shew the style of these documents, and at the same time the
use in them of certain Septuagint words. It is addressed by
the foremen (δεκάταρχοι) of a gang engaged in a stone quarry to
the engineer of the works (ἀρχιτέκτων):

Κλέωνι χαίρειν. οἱ δεκάταρχοι τῶν ἐλευθέρ[ων] λατόμων ἀδικού-
μεθα: τὰ γὰρ ὁμολογηθέντα ὑπὸ ᾿Απολλωνίου τοῦ διοικητοῦ οὐθὲν
γίνεται ἡμῖν, ἔχει δὲ τὴν γραφὴν Διότιμος. σπούδασον οὖν ἵνα καθὰ
ἐξειλήφαμεν ἤδη, ὑπὸ Διονυσίου καὶ Διοτίμου χρηματισθῇ ἡμῖν, καὶ
μὴ τὰ ἔργα evhecOn, καθὰ καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐγένετο. ἐὰν γὰρ αἴσθωνται
οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι οὐθὲν ἡμᾶς εἰληφότας τὸν σιδηρὸν ἐνέχυρα θήσουσιν.

4. Simultaneously with the growth of the colloquial mixed
dialect, a deliberate attempt was made at Alexandria to revive
the glories of classical Greek. The first Ptolemy, who had
been the companion of Alexander’s, early days, retained
throughout his life a passion for literature and learning.
Prompted, perhaps, by Demetrius of Phalerum, Soter founded
at Alexandria the famous Museum, with its cloisters and
lecture rooms and dining hall where scholars lived a common
life under a warden appointed by the King’. To Soter is
also attributed the establishment of the great library which is
said to have contained 400,000 codices®. Under his successor
the Museum and Library became a centre of literary activity,
and the age to which the inception of the Greek Bible is
usually ascribed produced Aratus, Callimachus, Herondas, Ly-
cophron, and Theocritus. There is however no reason to
suppose that the Jewish translators were officially connected
with the Museum, or that the classical revival under Soter
and Ptolemy affected them directly. Such traces of a lite-
rary style as we find in the Greek Pentateuch are probably

1 Flinders Petrie Papyri, i. xiii. (p. 33). The reader will notice several
LXX. words (dexdrapxos=LXX. δεκάδ., διοικητής, χρηματίζεσθαι, ἐνέχυρον).
Sometimes these papyri afford illustrations of the Lxx. which are not
merely verbal; cf. II. xiv. 2 és τὰ ἄχυρα πρὸς τὴν πλίνθον.

2 Strabo, 794; cf. Mahaffy, Zmzpzre of the Ptolemies, p. gt ff.

3 Joseph., at. xii. 2. Seneca, de trangutl. animae 9. Cf. Susemihl,
Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur in α΄. Alexandrinerzeit, i. 336.

294 The Greek of the Septuagint.

due not to the influence of the scholars of the Royal Library,
but to the traditions of Greek writing which had floated
down from the classical period and were already shaping
themselves under altered conditions into a type of Greek
which became the common property of the new Hellenism.

5. The later Greek, the κοινὴ or Ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος----
the dialect in general use among Greek-speaking peoples
from the fourth century onwards'—was based on Attic Greek,
but embraced elements drawn from all Hellenic dialects.
It was the literary language of the cosmopolitan Hellas
created by the genius of Alexander. The change had begun
indeed before Alexander. Even Xenophon allows himself
to make free use of words of provincial origin, and to em-
ploy Attic words with a new connotation; and the writings
of Aristotle mark the opening of a new era in the history
of the Greek language’. But the golden age of the κοινή
begins in the second century with Polybius (c. B.c. 145), and
extends a century or two beyond the Christian era, producing
such writers as Diodorus Siculus (B.c. 40), Strabo (A.D. 10),
Plutarch (A.D. 90), and Pausanias (A.D. 160). The language
used by the writers of the Greek Diaspora may be regarded
as belonging to a subsection of an early stage of the κοινή,
although, since the time of Scaliger, it has been distinguished
from the latter by the term ‘ Hellenistic®.’ A ‘Hellenist*’ is
properly a foreigner who affects Greek manners and speaks
the Greek tongue. Thus the Jewish Greek spoken in Pales-
tine was ‘Hellenistic’ in the strictest sense. The word is
often used to describe the Greek of such thoroughly Hellen-

1 See Professor Jebb in Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook to modern
Greek, p. 290.

2 Mullach, Gramm. d. Vulgarsprache, p. 48. H. A. A. Kennedy,
Sources of N. T. Greek, p. τὰ fi.

3 See Winer-Moulton, p. 29.

4 Acts vi. I, xi. 20.

The Greek of the Septuagint. 295

ised writers as Philo and Josephus, and the post-apostolic
teachers of the ancient Church; but it is applied with special
appropriateness to the Alexandrian Bible and the writings of
the New Testament, which approach most nearly to the
colloquial Greek of Alexandria and Palestine.

6. Such were the local types of Greek upon which the
Jewish translators of the O.T. would naturally mould their
work. While the colloquial Greek of Alexandria was their
chief resource, they were also influenced, in a less degree,
by the rise of the later literary style which was afterwards
known as the κοινή.

We are now prepared to begin our examination of the
vocabulary and grammar of the Alexandrian Bible, and we
may commence by testing the vocabulary in the translated
books. Let us select for this purpose the first three chapters
of Exodus, 1 Kingdoms, 2 Chronicles, Proverbs, and Jeremiah,
books which are, perhaps, fairly representative of the trans-
lation as a whole. Reading these contexts in the Cambridge
manual edition, and underlining words which are not to be
found in the Greek prose of the best period, we obtain the
following results. In Exod. i.—ii. there are 19 such words;
in 1 Regn. 1.--111., 39 ; in 2 Chron. 1.—ii1., 27 ; in Prov. i.—iii.,
16; in Jer. i.—i1., 34; making a total of 135 later words in
15 chapters, or nine to a chapter. Of these words 52—
considerably more than a third—appear to be peculiar to the
LxxX., or to have been used there for the first time in extant
literature.

The following are the Septuagintal words observed in the
above-named passages. Verbs: ἀνδριοῦν, δευτεροῦν, διοδεύειν,
ἐνευλογεῖσθαι, ἐξολεθρεύειν, ἐξουθεν οῦν, εὐοδοῦν, κατακληρονομεῖν, κατα-
σκοπεύειν, κατεμβλέπειν, κατοδυνᾷν, ὀλεθρεύειν, ὀρθοτομεῖν, ὀρθρίζειν,
πνευματοφορεῖσθαι, πτωχίζειν, σκοπεύειν, συνεδριάζειν, τριετίζειν, τρο-
φεύειν, φιλεχθρᾷν. Nouns: ἀγάπη, ἀσυνθεσία, ἀσφαλτόπισσα,
βδέλυγμα, γένημα, δόμα, ἐργοδιώκτης, θλιμμός, καταπέτασμα, κρίμα,
λατόμος, μέθυσμα, ὁλοκαύτωμα, ὁλοκαύτωσις, ὀρόφωμα, παντοκράτωρ,

206 The Greek of the Septuagint.

προσήλυτος, πρόσκομμα, ῥοίσκος, σύντριμμα. Foreign words (a)
with Greek terminations: ἅβρα, 0781s, σίκλος" (4) transliterated :
αἴλάμ, SaBeip, ἐφοὺδ Bap, νέβελ, ἐλωὲ σαβαώθ, οἰφί, σερσέρεθ,
χερουβείμ. -

A similar experiment has been made by Dr Η. A. A.
Kennedy in reference to one of the books of the Pentateuch.
Of 110 late words and forms observed in Deut. i.—x. he
found that 66 belonged to Biblical Greek, 16 of these being
peculiar to the Lxx.; of 313 such words in the entire book,
152 proved to be Biblical, and 36 peculiar to the Old Testa-
ment; nearly half belonged to the κοινή, and more than a
fourth had been used by the writers of tragedy and comedy.

A complete list of the late words in the Lxx. is still a
desideratum. Lists which have been made for the N.T. shew
that out of 950 post-Aristotelian words about 314—just under
one third—occur also in the Greek O.T.’ But the writers of the
N.T. have taken over only a part—perhaps a relatively small
part—of the vocabulary of the Lxx. As Dr T. K. Abbott
has pointed out*, the 51st Psalm alone yields four important
words (ἀγαθύνειν, ἀκουτίζειν, ἀνόμημα, ἀνταναιρεῖν) which find
no place in the N.T. This fact is suggestive, for the Psalm
is doctrinally important, and the words are such as would
have lent themselves readily to N.T. use.

The following LXx. words are condemned by Phrynichus as
non-Attic: αἰχμαλωτίζεσθαι, ἀποτάσσεσθαι, βασίλισσα, βουνός,
βρέχειν (in the sense of ὕειν), γρηγορεῖν, ἐλεύσεσθαι, ἐξάδελφος,
κατόρθωμα, μεγιστάν, μέθυσος, οἰκοδομή, παιδίσκη, πάπυρος, παρεμ-
βολή, πεποίθησις, πλῆξαι, ῥάπισμα, ῥύμη, σκορπίζεσθαι, σύσσημον.
Some of these words are said to be provincialisms; e.g. βουνός
is Sicilian, σκορπίζεσθαι is Ionic, παρεμβολή and ῥύμη are Mace-
donian 5,

As our knowledge of Alexandrian Greek increases, it may be

that the greater part of the words which have been regarded as
peculiar to the LXx. will prove to belong to the usage of Egyptian

1 Kennedy, of. czt., p. 62. Cf. the lists in the appendix to Grimm-
Thayer’s Lexicon of N. 7. Greek (p. 691 ff.).
2 Essays, p. 69. 3 See above, p. 292.

The Greek of the Septuagint. 297

Greek. Deissmann has already shewn that many well-known
Septuagintal words find a place in the Greek papyri of the
Ptolemaic period, and therefore presumably belonged to the
language of business and conversation at Alexandria. Thus
yoyyu¢ew occurs in a papyrus of 241—239 B.C.; ἐργοδιώκτης;
255 B.C.; παρεπίδημος, 225 B.C.; forms such as ἦλθα, ἐπήλθοσαν,
γέγοναν, oides, can be quoted from the papyri fassim; ἀναστρέ-
φεσθαι and ἀναστροφή in an ethical sense, λειτουργεῖν in reference
to the service of a deity, περιτέμνεσθαι of circumcision, πρεσβύ-
tepos of an official, are shewn to have been in use in Egypt
under the Ptolemies. In many cases however words receive a
new connotation, when they pass into Biblical Greek and come
into contact with Hebrew associations. As examples the follow-
ing may suffice: ἄγγελος, γραμματεύς, διάβολος, εἴδωλον, ἔθνη,
ἐκκλησία, παντοκράτωρ, πεντηκοστή, προσήλυτος, χριστός.

The forms of many words have undergone a change since
the age of classical Greek. A few specimens may be given from
the pages of Phrynichus :

Attic Greek. Greek of the Lxx. Attic Greek. Greek of the Lxx.
ἀποκρίνασθαι ἀποκριθῆναι μιαρός μιερός
ἀφείλετο ἀφείλατο μόχλος μόκλος (MSS.)
ἄχρι, μέχρι ἄχρις, μέχρις νεοσσός, -σἰα νοσσός, -σία
γενέσθαι γενηθῆναι νουμηνία νεομηνία
γλωσσοκομεῖον γλωσσόκομον ὄρθριος ὀρθρινός
διψῆν διψᾷν οὐδείς οὐθείς
δυοῖν δυσί πεινὴν πεινᾷν
ἐδεῖτο ἐδέετο πήχεων πηχῶν
εὕρημα εὕρεμα ποδαπός ποταπὸς
καθά P καθώς ταχύτερον τάχιον
καταμύειν καμμύειν

7. But the vocabulary of the Lxx. is not its most character-
istic feature. With no other vocabulary than that of the
Alexandrian translators, it might be possible to produce a
fairly good piece of Greek prose in the style of the later prose
writers. It is in its manner, in the construction of the sen-
tences and the disposition of the words, that the Greek of the
LXX. is unique, and not only or chiefly in its lexical eccen-
tricities. ‘This may perhaps be brought home to the student
most effectually by a comparison of the Greek Bible with two
great Hellenistic writers of the first century a.D. (a) In the
works of Philo we have a cultured Hellenist’s commentary on

298

The Greek of the Septuagint.

the earlier books of the Lxx., and as he quotes his text ver-
batim, the student can discern at a glance the gulf which
divides its simple manner, half Semitic, half colloquial, from
the easy command of idiomatic Greek manifested by the

Alexandrian exegete.

We will give two brief specimens.

Philo de py. mundt Fide φησὶ δ᾽ ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὃ θεὸς
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν" τὴν ἀρχὴν παραλαμβάνων, οὐχ ὡς
οἴονταί τινες τὴν κατὰ χρόνον, χρόνος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν πρὸ κόσμου, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ
σὺν αὐτῷ ἢ μετ᾽ αὐτόν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεώς
ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, προτέρα δὲ τοῦ κινουμένου κίνησις οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον. αὐτὴν ἢ ὕστερον ἢ ἅμα συνίστασθαι, ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα
καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἢ ἰσήλικα κόσμου γεγονέναι ἢ νεώτερον ἐκείνου: πρεσ-
βύτερον δ᾽ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τολμᾷν ἀφιλόσοφον. De Migr. A brahami
39: ἐὰν μέντοι σκοπούμενος μὴ ῥᾳδίως καταλαμβάνῃς ἃ ἃ ζητεῖς, ἐπίμενε
μὴ κάμνων... οὗ χάριν ὁ φιλομαθὴς τοῦ τύπου Συχὲμ ἐνείληπται,
μεταληφθὲν δὲ τοὔνομα Συχὲμ ὠμίασις καλεῖται, πόνου σύμβολον,
ἐπειδὴ τοῖς μέρεσι τούτοις ἀχθοφορεῖν ἔθος, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἑτέρωθι
μέμνηται λέγων ἐπί τινος ἀθλητοῦ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον Ὑπέθηκε τὸν
ὦμον εἰς τὸ πονεῖν, καὶ ἐγένετο ἀνὴρ γεωργός. ὥστε μηδέποτε,
ὦ διάνοια, μαλακισθεῖσα ὀκλάσης, ἀλλὰ Kav τι δοκῇ δυσθεώρητον εἶναι,

τὸ ἐν σαυτῇ βλέπον διανοίξασα διάκυψον εἴσω.

(4) Josephus is not a commentator, but a historian who
uses the LxxX. as an authority, and states the facts in his own

words.

We will contrast a few passages of the Greek Bible

with the corresponding contexts in the Axftiguitties.

Exod. ii. 2—4.

ἐσκέπασαν αὐτὸ μῆνας τρεῖς
««ἔλαβεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ
θῖβιν, καὶ κατέχρισεν αὐτὴν
ἀσφαλτοπίσσῃ καὶ ἐνέβαλεν τὸ
παιδίον εἰς αὐτήν ....καὶ κατεσκό-
πευεν ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ μακρόθεν
μαθεῖν τί τὸ ἀποβησόμενον αὐτῷ.

I Regn. i. I—4.
ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐξ ‘Appadaup ..
ἐξ ὄρους Ἔφράιμ.. καὶ τούτῳ Sto
γυναῖκες" ὄνομα τῇ μιᾷ Αννα καὶ
τῇ μιᾷ Φεννάνα. καὶ ἢν τῇ Φεν-
νάνᾳ παιδία, καὶ τῇ ἽΑννᾳ οὐκ ἢν
παιδίον... πλὴν ὅτι τὴν Ανναν
ἠγάπα ᾿Ἑλκανὰ ὑπὲρ ταύτην.

a
Ἄνναν τε καὶ Φεννάναν.

Joseph. az. il. 9. 4.

τρεῖς μὲν μῆνας map αὐτοῖς
τρέφουσι λανθάνοντες...μηχανῶν-
ται πλέγμα βίβλινον... ἔπειτα χρί-
σαντες ἀσφάλτῳ... ἐντιθέασι τὸ
παιδίον..-Μαριάμη δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς
ἀδελφὴ. «ἀντιπαρεξήει φερόμενον
ὅποι χωρήσει ὀψομένη τὸ πλέγμα.

Joseph. azz. v. Io. 2.

ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐν μέσῳ πολιτῶν τῆς
᾿Ἐφράμου κληρουχίας “Ῥαμαθὰν
πόλιν κατοικῶν ἐγάμει δύο γυναῖκας
ἐκ δὲ
ταύτης καὶ παῖδες αὐτῷ γίνονται,
τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν ἄτεκνον οὖσαν
ἀγαπῶν διετέλει.

»Οσδ Ν Αἁ)|εθθννν πος

The Greek of the Septuagint.

2 Chron. ili. I—2.
καὶ ἤρξατο Σαλωμὼν τοῦ
οἰκοδομεῖν τὸν οἶκον Κυρίου...
καὶ ἤρξατο οἰκοδομὴ ἐν τῷ μηνὶ
τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐ ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρ-
τῳ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ.

Isa. xxxix. 6—7.

idov ἡμέραι ἔρχονται καὶ

λήμψονται πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ
σου καὶ...«εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἥξει...

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων σου ὧν
, , ΩΝ ,

γεννήσεις λήμψονται, καὶ ποιή-
κ ,

σουσιν σπάδοντας ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ

299

Joseph. azz. vill. 3. 1.
τῆς δὲ οἰκοδομίας τοῦ ναοῦ
Σολομὼν ἤρξατο τέταρτον ἔτος ἤδη
τῆς βασιλείας ἔχων μηνὶ δευτέρῳ.

Joseph. azz. x. 2. 2.

” > pa , / >

ἴσθι ov μετ᾽ ὀλίγον χρόνον εἰς
Βαβυλῶνά σου τοῦτον μετατεθησό-"
μενον τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τοὺς ἐκ-
γόνους εὐνουχισθησομένους καὶ
ἀπολέσαντας τὸ ἄνδρας εἰναι, τῷ
Βαβυλωνίῳ δουλεύσοντας βασιλεῖ.

τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων.

Josephus, it will be seen, has rewritten each passage, and
in doing so, has not only modified the vocabulary, but revo-
lutionised the style. On turning from the left hand to the
right hand column we pass from a literal translation of Semitic
texts to an imitation of classical Greek. But the contrast is
not entirely due to the circumstance that the passages taken
from the Septuagint are translations, while the Axtigutties
is an original work. ‘Translations, however faithful, may be
in the manner of the language into which they render their
original. But the manner of the Lxx. is not Greek, and does
not even aim at being so. It is that of a book written by
men of Semitic descent, who have carried their habits of
thought into their adopted tongue. The translators write
Greek largely as they doubtless spoke it; they possess a
plentiful vocabulary and are at no loss for a word, but they
are almost indifferent to idiom, and seem to have no sense
of rhythm. Hebrew constructions and Semitic arrangements
of the words are at times employed, even when not directly
suggested by the original. These remarks apply especially
to the earlier books, but they are true to a great extent in
regard to the translations of the second century ; the manner
of the older translations naturally became a standard to which

300 The Greek of the Septuagint.

later translators thought it right to conform themselves. Thus
the grandson οἵ. Jesus son of Sirach writes his prologue in
the literary style of the Alexandrian Jews of the time of Euer-
getes, but in the body of the work he drops into the Biblical
manner, and his translation differs little in general character
from that of the Greek version of Proverbs.

8. From the general view of the subject we proceed to a
detailed account of some of the more characteristic features
of the language of the Lxx. They fall under three heads—
orthography, accidence, syntax. Under the second head a
full list of examples from the Pentateuch will be given, with
the view of familiarising the beginner with the vocabulary
of the earlier books.

I. ORTHOGRAPHY.

In the best MSS. of the Lxx. as of the N.T. a large
number of peculiar spellings occur, of which only a part can
be assigned to itacism and other forms of clerical error. In
many of the instances where the great uncial MSS. of the Greek
Bible persistently depart from the ordinary orthography they
have the support of inscriptions contemporary with the trans-
lators, and it is manifest that we have before us specimens of
a system which was prevalent at Alexandria’ and other centres
of Greek life* during the third and second centuries before
Christ.

To a considerable extent the orthography of the MSS. is
the same in the Lxx. and the N.T. The student may find
ample information with regard to the N.T. in the (Votes on
Orthography appended to Westcott and Hort’s Introduction,
and in the best N. T. grammars (Ph. Buttmann, Winer-

1 Cf. Sturz, de dial. Maced., p. 111 ff.

* See (e.g.) K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften
(Berlin, 1885); Deissmann, Veue Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1897. E. Mayser,

Grammattk der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzett, 1. Teil, Leipzig,
1898 (Progr. des Gymn. Heilbronn).

The Greek of the Septuagint. 301

Moulton, Winer-Schmiedel, Blass). But even in MSS. which
like SBAC originally contained the whole of the Greek Scrip-
tures, the Greek Old Testament possesses an orthography
which is in part peculiar to itself, and certain features which
are common to both Old and New Testaments are found
with greater frequency and with a wider application in the
Lxx. than in the N.T. The reader of the Cambridge manual
Lxx. who’ is interested in this question, can readily work out
the details from the apparatus criticus, and more especially
from the appendix, where he will find all the spellings of the
uncial MSS. employed which were not thought worthy of a
place in the footnotes to the text. For those to whom ortho-
graphy is of little interest the specimens given below will pro-
bably suffice.

Consonants. Assimilation neglected in compounds: ἐνγασ-
τρίμυθος, συνκατακληρονομεῖν, συνσεισμός, evKaivia, ἐνχειρίδιον.
Assimilation where there is no composition: ἐμ μέσῳ, ἐγ
γαστρί. Use of ν ἐφελκυστικόν before consonants (omission is
rare, except in a few cases such as πᾶσι before the art.) ; use of
the final s in ἄχρις, μέχρις, οὕτως, ἄντικρυς. Retention of the p in
fut. and aor. pass. of λαμβάνειν (λήμψομαι, ἐλήμῴφθην), and in words
formed from it, e.g. πρόσλημψις, προσωπολημπτεῖν. Οὐθείς. μηθείς
for οὐδείς, μηδείς. Τ' dropped in the middle of a word between
vowels, aS κραυή, ὀλίος, φεύειν (especially in cod. δ). ‘P not
doubled in compounds, e.g. ἐπιραντίζειν, κολοβόρις, κατάρακτος),
and reduplicated in the augment (pepavticpévos); oo for tr in
ἐλάσσων, ἥσσων, and po for pp in ἄρσην, θαρσεῖν. In some verbal
forms consonants are doubled, e.g. Bévvew, κτέννειν, χύννειν.
Rough and smooth consonants are occasionally exchanged, e.g.
xvOpa (τ Regn. 11. 14, B) for χύτρα.

Vowels. Ex for « in syllables where ὁ is long, e.g. Semitic
words such as Aevei, Λευείτης, Δαυείδ, Σειών, and Greek words as
τραπεζείτης, yeiver Oa, γεινώσκειν. Also (perhaps by itacism) in
innumerable instances of 71: e.g. κεινεῖν, καθεῖσαι, κλείνη, κρεινεῖν.
I for εἰ; e.g. τίχος, λιτουργεῖν, ἀλίφειν, ἄλιμμα, κατελίφθην, παράδιγμα,

,ὔ > ,ὕ 7 “- ᾿ , ,ὔ
δανίζειν, ὀφιλέτης, αἴγιος, and esp. in nouns in -εία, eta, 6.5. ἀπωλία,
ἐνδία, παιδία, Σαμαρία, στρατία, and those in εἴον, as δάνιον, εἰδώλιον.
A for ε, as ἐραυνᾷν ; ε for a, as ἐκαθερίσθην, μιερός, τεσσεράκοντα."

1 Especially in cod. Β (O.7. in Greek, τ. p. xiii.).

302 The Greek of the Septuagint.

Omission of a syllable consisting of 1, as in πεῖν, ταμεῖον. Pre-
fixing of a vowel, as in ἐχθές.

Breathings. "Rough breathing for smooth: e.g. οὐχ ὁλίγος,
ep ἑλπίδι, ἔφιδε, οὐχ εἱσακούσομαι (Jer. vil. 16), καθ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς
(Ezech. xx. 14). Similarly we find ἅλσος, ἁλώπηξ, ἑνιαυτός Dt.
xiv. 20 (Nestle, Septuagintastudien i. p. 19, il. pp. 12, 13, 20 f.).
Smooth breathing for rough: οὐκ ἔνεκεν (2 Regn. vil. 12), οὐκ
ὑπάρχει (Job xxxvili. 26, A).

Abnormal spellings such as these occur on every page of
an uncial MS. of the Lxx. and sometimes cause great per-
plexity to an editor of the text. So far as they correctly
represent the written or spoken Greek of the period, their
retention is, generally speaking, desirable. In some cases the
MSS. are unanimous, or each MS. is fairly persistent in its
practice ; in others, the spelling fluctuates considerably. The
Cambridge manual Lxx. usually adopts a spelling which is
persistently given by the MS. whose text it prints, and on
the same principle follows the fluctuations of its MS. where
they are of any special interest. But the whole question of
orthography is far from having reached a settlement.

1. AccrpeNcE. We will deal with (1.) the formation
of words, (ii.) the declension of nouns, (iil.) the conjugation
of verbs.

(i.) Formation of words.

(a) Words formed by termination :

Verbs. In -ovv from nouns in -os: ἀμαυροῦν, ἀποδεκατοῦν, ἀπο-
λυτροῦν, ἀποτυφλοῦν, ἀσφαλτοῦν, διαβιοῦν, ἐκτυποῦν, ἐλαττονοῦν, ἐπι-
διπλοῦν, ἐπιπεμπτοῦν, ἐρυθροδανοῦν, εὐοδοῦν, θανατοῦν, καταχρυσοῦν,
κυροῦν, παλαιοῦν, παραζηλοῦν, περικυκλοῦν, συγκυροῦν. In τ-ίζειν,
-ἀζειν, -ἰάζειν, «ὐξειν: ἁγιάζειν, αἱρετίζειν, ἀκουτίζειν, ἀναβιβάζειν,
ἀναθεματίζειν, ἀπογαλακτίζειν, αὐγάζειν, ἀφαγνίζειν, ἀφανίζειν, ἀφορί-
ζειν, βαδίζειν, γελοιάζειν, γρύζξειν, δανίζειν, διαγογγύζειν, διασκεδάζειν,
διασκορπίζειν, διαχωρίζειν, ἐκθερίζειν, ἐκκλησιάζειν, ἐκμυελίζειν,
ἐκσπερματίζειν, ἐκτοκίζειν, ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνυπνιάζειν, ἐνωτίζεσθαι,
ἐξεικονίζειν, ἐξετάζειν, ἐξοπλίζειν, ἐξορκίζειν, ἐπικλύζειν, ἐπιραντίζειν,
ἐπισκιάζειν, ἐπιστοιβάζειν, ἐπιφημίζειν, θυσιάζειν, καταβιάζειν, κατα-
σκιάζειν, κατασοφίζειν, κληδονίζειν, κομίζειν, κουφίζειν, λεπίζειν,
λευκαθίζειν, μακαρίζειν, μελίζειν, οἰωνίζειν, ὀνυχίζειν, ὀπτάζειν,
ὀρθρίζειν, παραδειγματίζειν, παραδοξάζειν, παραλογίζειν, περιασπί-

The Greek of the Septuagint. 303

ζειν, περιονυχίζειν, περιραντίζειν, πλεονάζειν, πολυχρονίζειν, προσεγ-
γίζειν, προσοχθίζειν, σαββατίζειν, σκεπάζειν, σπερματίζειν, στηρίζειν,
στοχάζειν, συμποδίζειν, συναθροίζειν, συνοικίζειν, σφακελίζειν, σχολά-
ζειν, τειχίζειν, φαυλίζειν, φλογίζειν, χλωρίζειν, χρονίζειν, ψωμίζειν.

In -evew: ἀγχιστεύειν, διοδεύειν, ἐξολεθρεύειν, ἱ ἱερατεύειν, κατα-
δυναστεύειν, κατακυριεύειν, ἐπε πέδον κατοχεύειν, μεταλλεύειν,
προφητεύειν, πρωτοτοκεύειν, στρατοπεδεύειν, τροφεύειν, ὑδρεύειν.

Nouns. In τμα, from verbs: ἁγίασμα, ἅγνισμα, ἀδίκημα,
αἴνιγμα, ἄλλαγμα, ἀνάστεμα, ἀνόμημα, ἀνταπόδομα, ἀπόδομα, ἀσέβημα,
αὔγασμα, ἀφαίρεμα, βδέλυγμα, διήγημα, δικαίωμα, διόρυγμα, διχοτό-
μημα, δόμα, ἐγκατάλιμμα, ἔδεσμα, ἐκκόλαμμα, ἐκτύπωμα, ἐπίθεμα,
ἐπικάλυμμα, ἐπιτήδευμα, ἕψεμα, ἡμίσευμα, θήρευμα, θυμίαμα, θυσί-
ασμα, ἱεράτευμα, κάρπωμα, κατάκαυμα, καταπέτασμα, καύχημα, κλέμμα,
λέπισμα, ὁλοκαύτωμα, ὃ ὅραμα, ὀφείλημα, ὀχύρωμα, παράδειγμα, παρά-
θεμα, παράρυμα, περίθεμα, περίψωμα, προσόχθισμα, πρόσταγμα;
πρωτογένημα, στερέωμα, συνάντημα, συν κάλυμμα, σύστεμα, τάγμα,
τίμημα, τόξευμα, φαλάκρωμα, φύλαγμα, φύραμα, χόρτασμα, χώνευμα.

In pos, from verbs: ἀφανισμύς, γογγυσμός, ἐνδελεχισμός, ἐνπο-
ρισμός, ἐξιλασμύς, ἐπισιτισμύς, ἱματισμός, καθαρισμός, μηρυκισμός,
οἰωνισμός, ὁρισμός, ὁρκισμύς, παροξυσμός, πειρασμός, σταθμός, στε-
ναγμός, φραγμύς, χωρισμός.

In -σις, from verbs: ἀναίρεσις, ἀνάμνησις, ἀποκιδάρωσις, ἄφεσις,
βεβαίωσις, γόγγυσις, γύμνωσις, δήλωσις, διάβασις, διασάφησις, ἐκδί-
κησις, ἔκστασις, ἔκχυσις, ἐπερώτησις, κατακάρπωσις, κατάλειψις,
κατάσχεσις, κατοίκησις, ὁλοκάρπωσις, ὁλοκαύτωσις, ὁμοίωσις, πλή-
ρώσις, πόρευσις, πρᾶσις, σύγκρασις, συνάντησις, συντίμησις, σύστασις,
ταπείνωσις, ὑπερόρασις, ὑπέροψις, ὑπόστασις, φαῦσις, χαράκωσις,
χήρευσις.

In -ἤ, from verbs : ἀλοιφή, ἀναζυγή, ἀποσκευή, ἀποστολή, ἀπο-
στροφή, ἁφή, διασκευή, δοχή, ἐκτριβή.. ἐντολή, ἐπαγωγή, ἐπισκοπή;
καταφυγή, ὁλκή, παραβολή, προνομή, προφυλακή, συναγωγή, τροπή.

In τής, from verbs (m.) : αἰνιγματιστής, ἐνταφιαστής, ἐξηγητής,
ἐπιθυμητής, ἑρμηνευτής, πολεμιστής, ῥαφιδευτής, σκεπαστής, σχο-
λαστής.

Adjectives. In-wos: δειλινός, δερμάτινος, καρύινος, ὀστράκινος,
πράσινος, στυράκινος, φλύγινος.

In -ιος: ἐνιαύσιος, ὁμομήτριος, πολυχρόνιος, ὑποχείριος.

In -ικός : ἀρσενικός, εἰρηνικός, λαμπηνικός, λειτουργικός, λιθουρ-
γικός, μυρεψικός, πατρικός, ποικιλτικός, πολεμικός, προφασιστικός.

N -Tos: ἀκατασκεύαστος, ἁλυσιδωτός, ἀόρατος, ἀπερικάθαρτος,
ἐπικατάρατος, εὐλογητός, λαξευτός, μισθωτός, ὀνομαστός, πλεοναστός,

φορολογιστός.
(ὁ) Words formed by composition :

Verbs compounded with two prepositions: ἀνθυφαιρεῖν, ἀντ-
αποδοῦναι, ἀποκαθιστᾷν, ἐν καταλείπειν, ἐνπεριπατεῖν, ἐξαναστέλλειν,

304 The Greek of the Septuagint.

ἐπισυνιστᾷν, κατεμβλέπειν, παρεμβάλλειν, συναναλαμβάνειν, συν-
αναστρέφεσθαι, συναπολλύειν, συνεκπολεμοῦν, συνεπακολουθεῖν,
συνεπισκέπτειν, συνκατακληρονομεῖν, συνπαραλαμβάνειν, συνπρο-
πέμπειν.

Nouns. Compounded with nouns: ἀσφαλτόπισσα, δασύπους,
ἑτερόζυγος, καμηλοπάρδαλις, κολοβόρις, μακροήμερος, μακροχρόνιος,
μικρόθυμος, ὁλόκληρος, ὁλοπόρφυρος, πολυέλεος, πολυχρόνιος, σκλη-
ροτράχηλος, χοιρογρύλλιον.

Compounded with a prefix or preposition: ἀντιπρόσωπος,
᾿Αντιλίβανος, ἀρχιδεσμοφύλαξ, ἀρχιδεσμώτης, ἀρχιερεύς, ἀρχιμάγειρος,
ἀρχιοινοχόος, ἀρχισιτοποιός, ἐπίπεμπτος, εὐπρόσωπος, κατάλοιπος,
κατάξηρος, παράλιος, παρεπίδημος, περιδέξιον, περίλυπος, περίοικος,
περίχωρος, ὕπανδρος, ὑπερμήκης.

Compounded with a verb stem, and forming a fresh noun or
a verb: ἀνεμοφθόρος, γλωσσότμητος, ἐργοδιώκτης, θανατηφόρος,
θηριάλωτος, θηρόβρωτος, ἱπποδρόμος, ἰσχνόφωνος, κτηνοτρόφος,
νυμφαγωγός, σιτοποιός, σφυροκόπος, τελεσφόρος, χαροποιός, δι-
χοτομεῖν, ζωογονεῖν, κλοποφορεῖν, κρεανομεῖν, λιθοβολεῖν, λιμαγ-
χονεῖν, νευρυκοπεῖν, ὀρνιθοσκοπεῖν, συμβολοκοπεῖν, τεκνοποιεῖν,

ψωραγριᾷν.
(ii.) Declension of nouns :

Declension 1. Nouns in -pa, -via, form gen. in ns, as μαχαίρης
Gen. xxvii. 40, Exod. xv. 9 (“vielfach bei A, bes. in Jerem.,” W.-
Schm.), κυνομυίης Exod. vill. 17, ἐπιβεβηκυίης τ Regn. xxv. 20. ©

Declension 2. Certain nouns in -ovs end also in -os, e.g.
χείμαρρος, ἀδελφιδός. The Attic form in -εὡς disappears; e.g. λαός
and ναός are written for λεώς and vews—the latter however occurs
in 2 Macc. (A). Nouns in -apyos pass occasionally into the first
declension, e.g. τοπάρχης Gen. xli. 34, κωμάρχης Esth. ii. 3, yeve-
σιάρχης Sap. xill. 3.

Declension 3. Uncontracted forms are frequent, as βαθέα
Job xii. 22, ὀστέα, πήχεων, χειλέων, and in the plural nom. and
acc. of neuters in -as, as κέρατα, πέρατα. Τῆρας makes gen. γήρους
dat. γήρει. Metaplasmus occurs in some words, e.g. δύο, δυσί, πᾶν
with masc. noun, πύλη, πύλεσιν (3 Regn. xxii. 11, A), σάββατα,
σάββασιν, τέσσαρες, τεσσάροις, χείρ, χεῖραν.

Proper nouns. Many are mere transliterations and indeclin-
able, e.g. Addu, ᾿Αβραάμ, Ἰωσήφ, Σαμουήλ, Δαυείδ, ᾿Αχαάβ, ᾿Ηλειού,
Ἐλεισαῖε, Δανιηλ. On the other hand some well-known names
receive Greek terminations and are declined, as Μωυσῆς or Μωσῆς,
Ἰησοῦς, ‘E¢exias, "Hoaias, Ἱερεμίας ; while some are found in both
forms, e.g. we have both Ἠλειού and Ἠλίε)ίας, Μανασσή and
Μανασσῆς, Σολομών indecl. and Σολομών gen. -μῶνος ΟΥ̓ -μῶντος.
But in the translated books the indeclinable forms prevail, and
there is no appearance of the forms “ASpapos, Ἰσράηλος, ᾿Ιώσηπος,

The Greek of the Septuagint. 305

which are familiar to the reader of Josephus. In the case of
local names transliteration is usual, e.g. Ἰερουσαλήμ, Βηθλέεμ,
Βαιθήλ, Sev. A few however have Greek terminations, as
Σαμάρεια Or Σαμαρία, Ἰόρδανος, and some names of foreign localities
are Hellenised, as Βαβυλών, Συρία, ἡ ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα, Ἰδουμαία,
Αἴγυπτος, and the two Egyptian towns Ἡρώων πόλις (Gen. xlvi.
28), Ἡλίου πόλις (Exod.i. 11). The declension of the Hellenised
names presents some irregularities ; thus we find Μωυσῆς, -σῆ,
-σεῖ, -σῆν: ᾿Ιησοῦς, -σοῦ, -σοῖ, -σοῦν: Μανασσῆς, -σῆ.

(11.) Conjugation of verbs.

Augments. Doubled, as in κεκατήρανται Num. xxii. 6, xxiv.
9; ἀπεκατέστησεν Gen. xxiii. 16, παρεσυνεβλήθη Ps. xlix. 13, 21 (A).
Prefixed to prepositions, e.g. ἐπρονόμευσαν Num. xxi. 1, Deut. ii.
35, ἐπροφήτευσαν Num. xi. 25 f., ἠνωτίσαντο 2 Esdr. xix. 30 (B).
Lengthened, as ἤμελλον Sap. xviii. 4, ἡβουλόμην Isa. i. 29, xiii. 9,
ἠδυνήθην, ἠδυνάσθην, 2 Chr. xx. 37, Jer. v. 4. Omitted, as in dvé6n
Jud. viii. 3, ἀφέθη Isa. xxxill. 24, αὐτάρκησεν Deut. xxxii. 10, ἐξο-
λόθρευεν I Chr. xxi. 15, dev Gen. i. 4, κατορθώθη 2 Chr. xxxv. 10.

Tensesand Persons. (1) Verbs ἴῃ -ω. New presents, as ἀμφιάζω,
ypnyop®, βέννω, κτέννω. Futures and aorists with reduplication:
κεκράξομαι (Job vi. 5), ἐκέκραξα (Num. xi. 2), ἐπεποίθησα (Jud. ix.
26 A). Contracted futures in -@ from -dow: ἐργᾷ Gen. iv. 2, ἁρπᾷ
Lev. xix. 13, ἐκδικᾶται Deut. xxxil. 43, ἐγκαυχᾷ Ps. lii. 3, συμβιβᾷ
Isa. xl. 13, ἀποδοκιμῶ Jer. xxxvili. (xxxi.) 37. Irregular futures:
ἔδομαι, φάγομαι, xe@ (Exod. iv. 9). Second aor. forms with termi-
nation in -a: εἴδαμεν 1 Regn. x. 14, ἔφυγαν 2 Regn. x. 14, épdya-
μεν 2 Regn. xix. 42, ἐλθάτω Esth. v. 4. Person endings: 2nd p.
5. pres. pass. or middle in -cat: πίεσαι, φάγεσαι (Ezech. xiii. 18,
Ruth il. 9, 14), ἀπεξενοῦσαι 3 Regn. xiv.6. 3rd p. pl. imperf. and
aor. act. in -ogav: ἐγεννῶσαν Gen. vi. 4, ἤλθοσαν Exod. xv. 27,
κατελίποσαν Exod. xvi. 24, κατενοοῦσαν Exod. xxxiii. 8, ἠνομοῦσαν
Ezech. xxii. 11; cf. the opt. αἰνέσαισαν Gen. xlix. 3, ἔλθοισαν
Deut. xxii. 16. 3rd p. pl. aor, mid. in -evro: ἐπελάθεντο Jud. iii.
7 (A), Hos. xiii. 6 (B), Jer. xvill. 15 (B¥A), &c. 3rd p. pl. perf.
act. in -av: ἑώρακαν Deut. xi. 7; πέποιθαν, Judith vii. Το. 2nd p.
5. perf. act. in -es; ἀπέσταλκες Exod. v. 22; ἔδωκες, 2 Esdr. xix.
10, Ezech. xvi. 21. (2) Verbs in -μι. From εἰμί we have ἤμην,
ἦσθα. From κάθημαι, κάθου Ps. cix. (cx.) 1. From torn, ἑστηκέναι,
ἑστηκώς. From δίδωμι, ἐδίδετο Exod. v. 13 (A), Jer. xii. 34;
dot, Ps. xli. 3 (B), 2 Regn. ili. 39 (A).

III. Syntrax.

Many of the irregularities which fall under this head are

SE Ss. . 20

’

due to the influence of the Hebrew text or of Semitic habits
of thought. These will be treated in the next section. In
this place we shall limit ourselves to constructions which
appear to be characteristic of the Greek idiom used by the
translators.

306 The Greek of the Septuagint.

Cases and Numbers. Nom. for voc., e.g. ὁ θεός for θεέ, Ps.
xxi. 2, esp. in the phrase Κύριε ὁ θεός ; θυγάτηρ -- θύγατερ, Ruth ii.
2, 22, iii. 1, &c. Disuse of the Dual.

Comparison. Use of a preposition with the positive for the
comparative, e.g. μέγας mapa πάντας, Exod. xvill. 11; ἀγαθὸς
ὑπὲρ δέκα, I Regn. i. 8.

Numerals. “Exra=énrraxis, Gen. iv. 24. Omission of καί
when numbers are coupled, e.g. δέκα δύο, δέκα ἕξ, δέκα πέντε, Ke.

Verbs. Rarity of the optative mood, and disappearance of
that mood in dependent clauses. Periphrasis with εἰμί, e.g.
πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι, 2 Regn. xxil. 3; ἴσθι πεποιθώς, Prov. 111. 5.
Indicative with ἄν : imperf. and aor., ὅταν εἰσήρχετο, Gen. XXxViii.
9; ὅταν ἐπῆρεν, Exod. xvii. 11 ; ὅταν κατέβη, Num. xi. 9; ἡνίκα ἂν
εἰσεπορεύετο, Jud. vi. 3; ἐὰν ἔσπειραν, Jud. vi. 2. Coordination
of indicative with conjunctive: Exod. viii. 8 ἐξαποστελῶ αὐτούς,
καὶ θύσωσι, Lev. vi. 2 ψυχὴ ἐὰν ἁμάρτῃ καὶ. . «παρίδῃ... καὶ ψεύσηται,
ἢ ἠδίκησεν...ἢ εὗρεν..«καὶ ψεύσηται... καὶ ὀμόσῃ κτλ. Use of infini-
tive, with or without the article, to express object, purpose, sub-
ject, or result!; e.g. (4) ἐζήτει ἀνελεῖν, Exod. 11. 15: ἤρξατο τοῦ
οἰκοδομεῖν, 2 Chr. ili. 1; (6) παραγίνεται BonOnva, 2 Regn. viil. 5;
ἀπέστειλεν τοῦ ἰδεῖν, Gen. viii. 7; (¢) συνέβη κρεμασθῆναι, Gen. ΧΙ].
13; τὸ προσκολλᾶσθαι ἀγαθόν Ps. Ixxil. 28; (4) ὁ θεὸς ἐγὼ τοῦ
θανατῶσαι καὶ ζωοποιῆσαι, 4 Regn. v. 7.

Connexion of the sentence. Use of gen. abs. in reference to
the subject of the verb: e.g. πορευομένου cov...dpa, Exod. iv. 21.
Anacoluthon: ἰδὼν δὲ Φαραὼ... ἐβαρύνθη ἡ καρδία Φαραώ, Exod.
ix. 7. Use of the finite verb where the classical language prefers
to employ a participle.

g. Besides the non-classical forms and constructions which
may fairly be placed to the credit of Alexandrian Greek, the
translated books of the Greek Bible naturally exhibit a large

11 follow mainly the classification of C. W. Votau in his excellent
thesis on the subject (Chicago, 1896). Votau has shewn that in the trans-
lated books of the O. T. there is almost an equal number of cases of the
anarthrous and the articular inf., whereas in the N. T. the articular inf. is
seldom found except in St Luke.

The Greek of the Septuagint. 307

number of irregularities which are of Semitic origin. The
following are examples.

(a) Lexical.

1. Transliterations, and Greek words formed from the
Hebrew or Aramaic.

2. Words coined or adopted to express Semitic ideas, as
ἀκροβυστία, ἀναθεματίζειν, ὁλοκαύτωμα, προσωπολημπτεῖν, BOS i
higew, σπλαγχνίζειν.

3. Phrases answering to the Hebrew idiom: e.g. ἄρτον φαγεῖν

—on? 22, ἔλεος ποιεῖν μετά τινος =OY TDN ΠΟΥ, ἐνώπιον τοῦ
κυρίου = nin “352, ζητεῖν ψυχήν = wD? Waa | θυσία σωτηρίου = Mat
Dow Wiis πρόσωπον = DE nvr, πᾶσα σάρξ -- W: ΡΝ
υἱὸς τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἑνὸς eviavT@v = |, nny DyS Na.

4. Words with a new connotation: ἅγιος, ἁμαρτωλός, ἀρετή;
ἀφόρισμα, ἄφρων, διάβολος, διαθήκη, δικαιοσύνη, ἐκκλησία, ἐλεημο-
σύνη, ἐξιλασμός, καρδία, Κύριος ΟΥ̓ 6 κύριος, λειτουργεῖν, ματαιότης,
ὁσιότης, πειράζειν, προφήτης, πτωχός, σάρξ, φυγαδευτήριον.

(ὁ)ὺ Grammatical’.

Nouns. Repeated to express distribution, e.g. ἄνθρωπος
ἄνθρωπος -- ON WN Num. ix. 10; ἔθνη ἔθνη = δὰ 44, 4 Regn.
xvii. 29. Similarly ΣᾺ δύο, Gen. vi. 19; κατὰ μικρὸν τ ρου (AF),
Exod. xxiii. 30. Emphatic adverbs also are occasionally doubled
after the Hebrew manner, as σφόδρα σφύδρα, Exod.,13;12; Ezech:
ix. 9; cf. σφόδρα σφοδρῶς, Gen. vii. 19 (A).

Pronouns. Otiose use, e.g. Gen. xxx. I τελευτήσω eyo Gye
358); Exod. ii. 14 σὺ θέλεις (ΟἿΌΝ DAN); Exod. xxxvi. 4 αὐτός,
αὐτοί. To Semitic influence is also due the wearisome iteration
of the oblique cases of personal pronouns answering to the
Hebrew suffixes, e.g. Jer. ll. 26 αὐτοὶ καὶ of βασιλεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ot
ἄρχοντες αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ προφῆται αὐτῶν. The
fem. αὕτη is occasionally used for τοῦτο after the manner of the
Heb. ΓΝ, as in Gen. xxxv. 17, 27, XXxvi. 1, Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.) 23;
see Driver on 1 Sam. iv. 7. To the circumstance that the
Hebrew relative is indeclinable we owe the pleonastic use of the
pronoun ὃ after the Greek relative in such passages as Gen. xxviil.
13, ἐφ᾽ ἧς...ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς (πὸν.. WR); Deut. i. 22 Ov ἧς...ἐν αὐτῆ

1 On this head see esp. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 132 ff.; Thiersch, de
Pentat. vers. Alex., p. 111 ff.

20—2

308 The Greek of the Septuagint.

(ΒΞ. Ὁ); Prov. iii, 15 ὧν.. αὐτῶν. A similar redundancy
occurs with relative adverbs: Deut. ix. 28, ὅθεν...ἐκεῖθεν (WWE...
Dw) ; 2 Chr. 1. 3, av...exes.
Verbs. The following Hebraisms may be specially noted.

Various phrases used to eas the Heb. inf. abs. when pre-
fixed to a finite verb, e.g. Exod. iii. 7, ἰδὼν ἴδον (NST TN);

Deut. xxxi. 18, ἀποστροφῇ ᾿ς (ΘΝ ADI); also the

Heb. nae ? AD: e.g. Exod. xiv. 13, οὐ προσθήσεσθε ἔτι ἰδεῖν,
1 Regn. iii. 6 προσέθετο καὶ ἐκάλεσεν (cf. uv. ὃ προσέθ. καλέσαι,
Job sire I προσθεὶς εἶπεν (TION), . 519"). Constructions with
prepositions contrary to the Greek idiom: βδελύσσεσθαι ἀπό
(252), Exod. i. 12; φείδεσθαι ἐπί, Deut. vil. 16; ἐπερωτᾷν ἐν
Κυρίῳ (MIND NW), 1 Regn. x. 22; εὐδοκεῖν ἐν or ἐπί (3 YBN).
Hebrew forms of adjuration as 1 Regn. iii. 14 εἰ (DN) ἐξιλασθή-
σεται, ib. 17 τάδε ποιήσει σοι 6 θεός, ἐάν... A question standing
for the expressign of a wish: Num. xi. 29 καὶ Tis δῴη πάντα τὸν
λαὸν Κυρίου... ; Ps. 111. (1111.) 6 τίς δώσει ἐκ Σειὼν τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ
Ἰσραήλ; Ἔῤὶϑ εἰμι followed by an ind. (Jud. vi. 18 ἐγώ εἰμι
καθίσομαι, 2 Regn. ii. 2 ἐγώ εἰμι mopevooua)—a construction
limited in B to Judges, Ruth, 2—4 Regn. Periphrases such as
ἔσομαι διδόναι (Tob. v. 15, BA). Pleonastic use of λέγων -- OND,
often soleecistically: e.g. Gen. xv. I ἐγενήθη ῥῆμα Κυρίου...λέγων,
xlv. 16 διεβοήθη ἡ pavi...d€éyovTes.

Particles. Pleonastic use of καί and δέ, (1) in an apodosis,
€.g. Num. why 14, ἐὰν. .. 7 POOYEVNTAL, sae eae ποιήσει κάρπωμα; Prov.
i. 28, ἔσται ὅταν. "ἐγὼ dé...; (2) after a participle: Num. xxi. II,
καὶ Beaders! «καὶ παρενέβαλον. Use of καί in a coordinated
clause, where a dependent clause might have been expected ;
e.g. Num. XXXV. 2, συντάξεις τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, καὶ δώσουσιν κτλ.

Prepositions. See under Verds. Peculiar uses of the Heb.
prepositions are often reflected in the Greek; e.g. I Regn. 1. 24,
hips ἐν μόσχῳ (ODS); Lev. xxi. 10, ὁ μέγας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν

αὐτοῦ (N12 2173). A number of new prepositions or preposi-
tional phrases are used to express the Hebrew δ, 6.5. ἔναντι,
ἀπέναντι, κατέναντι, ἐνώπιον, κατενώπιον, ἀπό, ἐπί, πρό, προσώπου.
Similarly ὀπίσω represents JIN; ἐν μέσῳ, ἀνὰ μέσον, διὰ μέσου
-- ΓΞ, ἀπὸ (ἐκ) μέσου-- PMD; διὰ χειρός, εἰς χεῖρας, ἐκ χειρός
=), ὍΞ; ὁδόν -- JI. The use of σύν to express the prefix
NS, which is characteristic of Aquila, occurs in codex A six

times in 3 Regn., once in Esther (where it probably came
from the Hexapla), and frequently in Ecclesiastes, where even

The Greek of the Septuagint. 309

cod. B shews this peculiarity, e.g. Eccl. 11. 17 ἐμίσησα σὺν τὴν
Cony (ONNI-NN) 1
1o. Both the vocabulary and the syntax of the Lxx.
exhibit remarkable affinities with the modern language. Mr
Geldart (Modern Greek Language, p. tot f.) urges the study
of modern Greek upon Biblical students on the ground that
“the Greek of the present day affords a better commentary on
the language of the Lxx. and of the N.T. than the writings
of contemporary historians, rhetoricians, grammarians and
philosophers.” He adds: ‘“‘The phraseology of the Lxx. 15
modern to an extent which is quite marvellous...let me men-
tion a few well-known words common to the Lxx. and modern
Greek : ἐπισκέπτομαι, ἀποκρίνομαι, ἐπιστρέφω, προσκυνῶ, ἐνώπιον,
πρόσκομμα, πειράζω, ἀκολουθῶ, κοιμῶμαι, ὅλος, κατοικῶ, καθέ-
ζομαι, καθίζω, τὰ ἱμάτια, ὑπάγω... The Greek of the N.T....is
by no means so vulgar, so merely a vernacular, as that of
the Lxx.” This estimate is perhaps overdone ; certainly there
are considerations which suggest caution in the use of modern
Greek usage as a key to the meaning of the Lxx. But the
general similarity of the Alexandrian vocabulary and, to a
less extent, of the Alexandrian syntax to those of the spoken
language indicates a common affinity to the old colloquial
Greek, which ultimately triumphed over the classical standards’.
That the resemblance is less marked in the case of the New
Testament is due to the different circumstances under which
it was written. Bilingual Palestinian writers of the first century
naturally possessed a more limited vocabulary and employed
a more chastened style than Alexandrian translators of the
time of Philadelphus and Euergetes, who had been born in
the heart of a great Greek city teeming with a cosmopolitan
population.

1 See above, p. 39, n. 2.

2 Cf. Prof. Jebb in Vincent and Dickson, p. 289: ‘‘modern Greek has
inherited, not only the ancient literature, but also an oral tradition which
preceded that literature, which co-existed with it, and which has survived it.”

310 The Greek of the Septuagunt.

11. Some of the non-canonical books of the Greek Old
Testament, which were either (a) loosely translated or para-
phrased from a Hebrew original, or (4) originally written
in Greek, need separate treatment in regard to their lexical
and grammatical character. Such are (a) 1 Esdras, Daniel
(Lxx.), (ὁ) Wisdom, 2—4 Maccabees.

The J/exicography of the ‘Apocrypha’ has been sepa-
rately treated by C. A. Wahl (Claus ibr. V. T. apocryphorum
philologica, Leipzig, 1853), and with the help of the Oxford
Concordance it may be studied independently. But, for the
sake of the student who has not the necessary leisure to
examine the subject in detail, it is desirable to notice here
the more conspicuous words in each of the books referred to
above.

1 ESDRAS.

dkodovOws=xard, dat. (2 Esdr.,
2 Macc.)

ἀναγνώστης = ypapparevs, 2 Esdr.

ἀναμφισβητήτως

ἀναπλήρωσις (Dan.)

ἀνιεροῦν (3 Macc.)

ἀντίγραφον (Esth., Ep.-Jer., 1, 2
Macc.)

ἀντιπαρατάσσειν

ἀπονοεῖσθαι (2 Macc.)

ἀποσημαίνειν

ἀποστατίς (2 Esdr.)

βιβλιοφυλάκιον

δημαγωγεῖν, -γία

διάδημα (Esth., Sap., 2, 4 Macc.)

δογματίζειν (Esth., Dan., 2, 3
Macc.)

δυσσέβεια, -βημα (2 Macc.)

εἰδωλεῖον (Dan., 1 Macc.)

ἐμφυσιοῦν

ἐπακουστός

ἐπιδόξως

ἐπισπεύδειν (Esth.!, Ῥτον.)

ἐρωμένη, ἡ (cod. B)

εὐθαρσής (1, 2 Macc.)

εὐπρεπῶς (Sap.)

εὐφυής (Sap., 2 Macc.)
ἱερόδουλος

ἱεροψάλτης

ἱστορεῖν

καταλοχισμός (1, 2 Chr.)
κολακεύειν (Job}, Sap.!)
λῃστεύειν

λωποδυτεῖν

μανιάκη (1) 41.)
μεγαλειότης

μεριδαρχία
μεταγενέστερος
ὀνοματογραφία
ὁρκωμοσία (Ez.)
πειθαρχεῖν (Jer., Dan.)
προκαθηγεῖσθαι (cod. B)
προπομπή
προσκεφάλαιον (Ez.)
συνβραβεύειν
σωματοφύλαξ (Judith, 2 Macc.)
ὑπομνηματίζειν
φορολογία (1 Macc.)
χαμαιπετής

χάσκειν

χρηματιστήριον
χρυσοχάλινος (2 Macc.)

EE νι βἔρρβ

The Greek of the Septuagint. 311

ἀποθαυμάζειν (Sir.)

ἀποτυμπανίζειν (3 Macc.)

ἀρχιεύνουχος

ἀρχιπατριώτης (Jos.)
αμάζειν

δημεύειν

διαμελίζειν

διάπυρος (3 Macc.)

διοικητής (2 Esdr., Tob.)

ἐγκύκλιος

ἐποργίζεσθαι (2 Macc.)

ἑστιατορία (4 Regn.)

εὐκαταφρόνητος

εὐσήμως

θερμασία (Τετ.1)

κηλιδοῦσθαι (Jer.)

DANIEL.

κονίαμα

κοπανίζειν (3 Regn.)
pavidkns (1 Esdr.*)
μεγαλειότης (1 Esdr., Jer.)
πρόσοψις (2 Macc.)
σαμβύκη

σοφιστής (Εχοά.1)
συναλοᾷν
συνμολύνεσθαι
σύριγξ

ὑπεραινετός
ὑπερένδοξος
ὑπερμεγεθής (1 Chr.)
ὑπερυψοῦν (Ps.?)
ὑπερφερής
φιλόσοφος (4 Macc.)

WISDOM.

This book contains an unusually large vocabulary, con-
sisting in great part of compound words. The following list,
taken from c. i1.—vl., will suffice to shew its lexical character*.

ἀγερωχία (2, 3 Macc.)
ἀδιάπτωτος
ἀθανασία (4 Macc.)
ἀκαταμάχητος
ἀκηλίδωτος (5.1)
ἀκοίμητος
ἀλαζονεύεσθαι (5.1)
ἀμάραντος
ἀμόλυντος
ἀναποδισμός
ἀνεκλιπής
ἀνεξικακία
ἀνυπόκριτος

> /

ἀπήμαντος
ἀπολογία

ἀπότομος, ἀποτόμως
ἀτέλεστος

ἀτίμητος (3 Macc.)

αὐτοσχεδίως
ἀφθόνως

βασκανία (4 Macc.)
δεκαμηνιαῖος
διορθωτής
δύσχρηστος (Isa.1)
ἐπισφαλῶς
ἐπιτήδειος (I Chr., 1—3 Macc.)
ἐπιφημίζειν (Deut.!)
ἐργατεία

εὐκλεής (Τ6τ.1)
εὔκυκλος

εὐμορφία (3 Macc.)
εὔστοχος

θυμήρης

ἰδιότης (3 Macc.)
Kakotrpayia

Kak OTEXVOS

* Cf. supra, p. 268 f., for some interesting examples from other parts

of the book.

312 The Greek of the Septuagint.

καταδαπανᾷν

κατάλυπος

κατάχρεως

μακρόβιος (154.1)

μονοήμερος

ὁμοιοπαθής (4 Macc.)

ὁπλοποιεῖν

παράδοξος (Judith, Sir., 2, 4
Macc.)

παραμύθιον

πολύγονος (4 Macc.)
πομπεύειν
πρωτόπλαστος : .
στεφανηφορεῖν .
συγγνωστός
συλλογισμός (Ex.")
τεκμήριον (3 Macc.)

φιλάνθρωπος

χρησιμεύειν (Sir.)

In 2—4 Maccabees the reader finds himself at length face
to face with the full richness of the Alexandrian literary style,
as it was written by cultured Hellenists of the second and
first centuries B.c. The writers, especially the writer of 4
Maccabees, may be said to revel in the use of compound words,
many of which may have been of their own coinage. Speci-

mens follow.

2 MACCABEES.

dyopavopia
ἀκαριαῖος
ἀκρόπολις
ἀκρωτηριάζειν
ἀλλοφυλισμός
ἀναλημπτέος
ἀπευθανατίζειν
ἀρχηγενέτης
ἀσυλία
αὐθαίρετος
βαρβαροῦν
δειλαν δριᾷν
δευτερολογεῖν
διάσταλσις
δοξικός
δυσπέτημα
ἐπευλαβεῖσθαι

εὐαπάντητος
θεομαχεῖν
θωρακισμός
κατευθεκτεῖν
λεληθότως
λιτανεία
ὁπλολογεῖν
πολεμοτροφεῖν
πολυπραγμονεῖν
προσαναλέγεσθαι
προσυπομιμνήσκειν
σπλαγχνισμός
συμμισοπονηρεῖν
συνεκκεντεῖν
τερατοποιός

ψυχαγωγία

2 MACCABEES.

ἀλογιστία
ἀμνησικακία

> ,
ἀνείκαστος
ἀνεπίστρεπτος

ἀνέφικτος
ἀσινής
Bapunxns
βυθοτρεφῆς

The Greek of the Septuagint. 313
ypapix os νεανικός
δημοτελής πανόδυρτος
δικαιοκρίτης παραναγινώσκειν
δυσαίακτος πολύδακρυς
εὐκατάλλακτος προκατασκιροῦν
κισσόφυλλον σιδηρόδεσμος
λαογραφία ὑπομαστιαῖος
λιβανοῦν ὑπόφρικος
μεγαλοκράτωρ φοβεροειδής
μεγαλομερής χαρτηρία
μιεροφαγία χειρονομία
μίσυβρις ψυχουλκεῖν

4 MACCABEES.

αἱμοβόρος ἱεροπρεπής
ἀναμοχλεύειν ἰσόπαλις
ἀποσκυθίζειν καλλίπαις
ἀρθρεμβόλος κηρογονία
ἀσθενόψυχος μαλακοψυχεῖν
ἀσυρής ξιφηφόρος
αὐτοδέσποτος ὀροφοιτεῖν
γαλακτοποιεῖν παθοκρατεῖσθαι, -τία
γαλακτοτροφία παιδοχαρακτήρ
εἰδωλόθυτος πηδαλιουχεῖν
ἐναγκάλισμα προσεπικατατείνειν
ἐναποσφραγίζειν συμπάθεια
ἐπιρωγολογεῖσθαι συναγελάζειν
ἑπταμήτωρ φιλομήτωρ
εὐλογιστία φιλοστοργία
θανατηφόρος φωταγωγεῖν

In the sty/e of the originally Greek books there is little
to remind us of the Semitic origin of the writers. The
Wisdom of Solomon follows generally the parallelisms of
Hebrew poetry, and its language is moulded to some extent
by the ~txx. of the Psalms and of Proverbs. In 2—4
Maccabees the influence of the canonical books appears in the
retention of transliterated names such as ᾿Αβραάμ, ᾿Ισραήλ,
Δανιήλ. But Ἰερουσαλήμ has become ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα, and Eleazar
is usually ᾿Ελεάζαρος. Of Hebrew constructions or modes of
thought there is only an occasional instance, whilst it is obvious

314 The Greek of the Septuagint.

that the writers lose no opportunity of exhibiting their skill
in the literary style of contemporary Alexandrian Greek.

LITERATURE. F. W. Sturz, De dialecto Macedonica et Alex-
andrina (1808); H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione
Alexandrina, libri 111. (1841); Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Sep-
tuaginta (1841); F. W. A. Mullach, Gramm. da. Vulgarsprache
in historischer Entwicklung (1856); G. v. Zazschwitz, Profan-
gracitat u. hellenist. Sprachgeist (1859); E. Reuss, art. Hedle-
nistisches Idiom (in Herzog-Plitt, vi., 1880); W. Schmid, Der
Atticismus...von Dionysius v. Halikarnass bis auf ad. zw. Philo-
stratus (Stuttgard, 1889—97); K. Meisterhans, Gramm. d. Atti-
schen Inschriften (1881); R.C.Jebb, App. to Vincent and Dickson’s
Handbook to modern Greek (1881); E. Hatch, Essays zn Biblical
Greek (1889), pp. I—130; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T.
Greek (1895); G. A. Deissmann, 4zbelstudien (1895), and Neue
Bibelstudien (1897),—also his art., Hellenistisches Griechisch, in
Hauck, vi. p. 627 ff. (Leipzig, 1899), where a full bibliography will
be found. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck (1820); W.G. Rutherford, The
new Phrynichus (1881); Du Cange, Glossartum ad scriptores
mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyons, 1688); J. C. Biel, Wovus
thesaurus philologicus, stve lexicon in LXX. (The Hague, 1779);
J. F. Schleusner, Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus...V. T.
(Leipzig, 1820); E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon for the Roman
and Byzantine periods* (1888); H. Anz, Swbstdia...e Pentateucht
vers. Alex. repetita (in Diss. philolog. Hal. xii. Halle, 1894);

J. Viteau, Etude sur le Grec du N.T. comparé avec celui des
Septante (Paris, 1896); E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Con-
cordance to thé Septuagint (1897); Th. Zahn, Eznlectung in das
N.T.,1., pp. 24 ff. (1897); Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung (Leipzig,
1899).

Much information on points of grammar and orthography
may also be gleaned from the N.T. grammars—A. Buttmann,
Grammatik ad. NT lichen Sprachgebrauchs (Berlin, 1859); Winer-
Moulton, Zyéatise on the Greek of the N.T® (1877); Winer-
Schmiedel, Grammatik d. NT lichen Sprachidioms, Theil 1.—il.
(1894—8); F. Blass, Grammatik d. NTlichen Griechisch (1896,
or the same translated by H. St J. Thackeray, 1898); A. R.
Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar (1897); and from the
Introduction and Appendix to Westcott and Hort’s WV. 7. zz
Greek (Intr., pp. 302—313, Afp., pp. 148—180). The Gramm.
Untersuchungen tiber die biblische Gracitdt of K. H. A. Lipsius
is limited to such matters as accentuation, punctuation, and the
abbreviations used in Biblical Greek MSS.; but within its own
scope it is a serviceable book.

CHAPTER ὧν:
THE SEPTUAGINT AS A VERSION.

THE purpose of this chapter is to prepare the beginner for
grappling with the problems presented by the Septuagint when
it is regarded as a translation of the Hebrew Bible. Almost at
the outset of his study of the Alexandrian version he will find
himself confronted by difficulties which can only be met by a
study of the general purpose and character of the work, the
limitations by which the translators were beset, and the prin-
ciples which guided them in the performance of their task.

I. The reader of the Septuagint must begin by placing
before his mind the conditions under which it was produced,
and the relation of the original work to our present texts,
Hebrew and Greek.

τ, (a) Strictly speaking the Alexandrian Bible is not a |
single version, but a series of versions produced at various
times and by translators whose ideals were not altogether alike.
Internal evidence’ of this fact may be found in the varying
standards of excellence which appear in different books or
groups of books. The Pentateuch is on the whole a close
and serviceable translation; the Psalms* and more especially

1 The external evidence has been briefly stated in Part i. c. i. (p. 23 ff.).
2 Cf. R. Sinker, Some remarks on the LXX. Version of the Psalms,

p- 9 ff.

316 The Septuagint as a Version.

the Book of Isaiah shew obvious signs of incompetence. The
translator of Job was perhaps more familiar with Greek pagan
literature’ than with Semitic poetry; the translator of Daniel
indulges at times in a Midrashic paraphrase. The version of
Judges which appears in our oldest Greek uncial MS. has been
suspected by a recent critic® of being a work of the 4th century
A.D.; the Greek Ecclesiastes savours of the school of Aquila.
When we come to details, the evidence in favour of a plurality
of translators is no less decisive. A comparison of certain
passages which occur in separate contexts distinctly reveals
the presence of different hands. The reader can readily form
a judgement upon this point if he will place side by side in the
Hebrew and the Greek 2 Regn. xxii. 2 ff. and Ps. xvii. (xvili.)
3 ff., 4 Regn. xvi. 17—xx. 19 and Isa. xxxvi. 1—xxxix. 8, or
Mic. iv. and Isa. il.

A single specimen may be given from Ps. xvii. compared
with 2 Regn. xxiii.

Ps. xvil. 3—6.
3Κύριος στερέωμά μου καὶ
καταφυγή μου καὶ ῥύστης pov:
ὁ θεός μου βοηθὸς καὶ ἐλπιῶ
ΡΠ ἘΠ
4aivOv ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύριον, καὶ
ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι.
"περιέσχον με ὠδῖνες θανάτου,
καὶ χείμαρροι ἀνομίας ἐξετάρ αξ-
av pe: δὠδῖνες ἅδου περιεκύκλω-
σάν με, προέφθασάν με παγίδες
θανάτου. Τ7καὶ ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί
με ἐπεκαλεσάμην τὸν κύριον, καὶ
πρὸς τὸν θεόν μου ἐκέκραξα"
; ; aa
ἤκουσεν ἐκ ναοῦ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ
φωνῆς μου, καὶ ἡ κραυγή μου
[ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ εἰσελεύσεται] εἰς
τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ.

1-Cf. e.g.. Job ix. 9, xlii.

2 Regn. xxii. 2—6.
"Κύριε πέτρα μου καὶ ὀχύ-
ρωμά μου καὶ ἐξαιρούμεν ds με
ἐμοί: 36 θεός μου φύλαξ ἔ ἔσται μου,
πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ....
“αἰνετὸν ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύριον,
καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι.
5ὅτι περιέσχον με συντριμμοὶ
θανάτου, χείμαρροι ἀνομίας ἐθάμ-
βησάν με: δὠδῖνες θανάτου
ἐκύκλωσάν με, προέφθασάν με
σκληρότητες θανάτου. 7év τῷ
θλίβεσθαί με ἐπικαλέσομαι Κύ-
ριον, καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεόν μου βοή-
\ > 4 > ~
σομαι, καὶ ἐπακούσεται ἐκ ναοῦ
αὐτοῦ φωνῆς Hou, kal 4 κραυγή
Ν
μου ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτοῦ.

14; from the latter passage Theodore of

Mopsuestia argued the pagan origin of the book (D. C. 8. iv. p. 939).

2 Moore, Fudges, p. xlvi.

The Septuagint as a Version. our

One of these versions has doubtless influenced the other, but
that they are the work of separate hands seems to be clear from
the differences of method which appear e.g. in the renderings of

pod, ΠΝ in the first verse, and the use of the aorist and the
future in vv. 6, 7.

If further proof is needed it may be found in the diverse
renderings of the same Hebrew words in different parts of the
Canon. ‘This argument must be used with caution, for (as we
shall presently see) such diversities are to be found not only in
the same book but in the same context. But after making
allowance for variations of this kind, there remain abundant
instances in which the diversity can only be attributed to a
change of hand. Thus DAWA is uniformly represented in the
Hexateuch by Φυλιστιείμ, but in Judges and the later books by
ἀλλόφυλοι; NDB is φάσεκ or φάσεχ in Chronicles'®) and Jere-
miah(), but πάσχα in all other books; ON is δήλωσις or δῆλοι
in the Pentateuch, but in Ezra-Nehemiah φωτίζοντες, φωτίσων ;
DM is ἀλήθεια in Exodus, but in Ezra τέλειον ; in Isaiah nS2y
is σαβαώθ more than 50 times, whilst παντοκράτωρ, which in
other books is the almost uniform rendering of the word when
it is used as a title of Deity, does not once occur; J} is
συναγωγή in Gen., Exod., Lev., Num., and again in the Pro-
phets, but ἐκκλησία in Deuteronomy (with one exception) and
onwards to the end of the historical books. The singular
phrase ἐγώ εἰμι-- 35 is limited to Judges, Ruth, and 1—4 Regn. ;
σύν = 8 of the object occurs in the true Lxx. only in Ecclesi-
astes; ἀμήν is peculiar to Chronicles and Ezra, other books
which contain the Heb. word (Num., Deut., 1 Regn., Psalms,
Jer.) preferring γένοιτο. Similar results may be obtained from
a comparison of the forms assumed by the same proper names
in different books. Elijah (17228) is Ἠλειού in the Books of
Kings, but “HAéas in Malachi and Sirach. The lists in
Chronicles use the Hebrew form of Gentile names (Θεκωεί,
᾿Αναθωθεί, &c.), where other books adopt the Greek (Θεκωείτης,

318 The Septuagint as a Version.

᾿Αναθωθείτης, &c.). In Ezra YINYON becomes ᾿Ασσούηρος, but
᾿Αρταξέρξης is substituted by the translator of Esther, and
Ξέρξης by the Lxx. translator of Daniel (ix. 1)’. It is difficult
to resist the force of this cumulative evidence in support of a
plurality of translators, especially when it is confirmed by what
we know οὗ the external history of the Septuagint.

(2) Further it is clear that the purpose of the version in
the later books is not altogether that which the translators of
the Pentateuch had in view. The Greek Pentateuch, as we
have seen, was intended to supply the wants of the Alexandrian
Synagogue. ‘The Book of the Twelve Prophets, and the three
major Prophets, were probably translated with the same general
purpose, but under a diminished sense of responsibility, since
the Prophets, even after their admission to the Canon, were
not regarded as sharing the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But
the Hagiographa, excepting perhaps the Psalter, stood on a
much lower level, and such books as Job, Esther, and Daniel
were perhaps viewed by the Alexandrians as national literature’
which was not yet classical and might be treated with the
freedom allowed by custom in such cases to the interpreter
and the scribe. Our estimate of the translator’s work must
clearly take account of his attitude towards the book upon
which he is engaged.

(c) Itis important also to bear in mind the peculiar diffi-
culties which beset the translators in their attempts to render
the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. To translate a Semitic
book into the language of the West was a new venture when it
was undertaken at Alexandria; the Greek Pentateuch “was
the work of pioneers and necessarily had the defects of such
work*.” No wonder if even in the later books the Hebrew

1 Theod. has ᾿Ασσουήρου in Daniel.

2 Cf. prol. to Sirach: τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων.

3 A. F. Kirkpatrick in Exfositor, v. iii. p. 268. Cf. W. R. Smith,
0.7, in Fewish Ch., pp. 75 f.

The Septuagint as a Version. 319

idiom refused to lend itself to the forms even of Hellenistic
Greek without losing to some extent its identity, as the trans-
lator of Sirach complains’. Moreover the majority of the
translators had probably learnt the sacred language in Egypt
from imperfectly instructed teachers, and had few opportunities
of making themselves acquainted with the traditional interpre-
tation of obscure words and contexts which guided the Pales-
tinian Jew. The want of a sound tradition is especially
manifest in poetical passages and books, and it makes itself
felt in the numerous transliterations, and in faulty readings
and renderings of the text®*. Such things may well make the
reader smile at the claim of inspiration which was set up for
the Lxx., but they ought neither to mislead his judgement,
nor to lessen his admiration for the courage and the general
success of the Alexandrian translators.

2. The student must also endeavour to realise the con-
dition of the Hebrew text which lay before the Alexandrian
translators.

(2) The text of the Hebrew Bible has undergone no
material change since the beginning of the second century a.D.
A vast store of various readings has been collected from the
MSS. by the diligence of Kennicott and De Rossi, but few
among them appear to be more than the omissions or corrup-
tions which spring from the accidents of transcription. All
existing MSS. belong to one type of text, and it is, in the main,
the type which was known to Jerome, to Origen, and to
Aquila, and which is reflected in the Targums and the Talmud.

1 Prol. ob yap ἰσοδυναμεῖ κτλ.

2 Even in Palestine ‘‘ before the Christian era...the exegetical tradition
was still in a rudimentary stage” (Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 69).

3 Dr Nestle points out that the mistakes of the 1,ΧΧ. are sometimes due
to Aramaic or Arabic colloquialisms, and gives the following examples:
Aramaic: Num. xxiv. 7 ἐξελεύσεται. Ps. cxl. 4 προφασίζεσθαι. Hos. i. 6
ἠλεημένη, Vi. 5 ἀπεθέρισα, τι ἄρχον. Isa. iv. 2 ἐπιλάμψει, 1111. το καθαρίσαι.
Jer. xxxviil. (xxxi.) 13 χαρήσονται. Arabic: Isa. vii. 6 συνλαλήσαντες.

320 The Septuagint as a Version.

But it is not that which was possessed by the Alexandrians of
the third and second centuries, B.c. At some time between the
age of the Lxx. and that of Aquila a thorough revision of the
Hebrew Bible must have taken place, probably under official
direction ; and the evidence seems to point to the Rabbinical
school which had its centre at Jamnia in the years that
followed the fall of Jerusalem as the source from which this
revision proceeded’. The subject, as a whole, will be treated
in a later chapter; meanwhile it is sufficient to warn the beginner
that in the Lxx. he has before him the version of an early
text which often differed materially from the text of the printed
Hebrew Bible and of all existing Hebrew MSS.

(ὁ) The palaeographical character of the MSS. employed by
the translators requires consideration. It will be remembered
that the newly discovered fragments of Aquila present the
Tetragrammaton in archaic letters". These letters belong to
the old Semitic alphabet which was common to the Hebrew,
Moabite, Aramaic, and Phoenician languages, and which appears
on the Moabite stone and in the Siloam inscription and, with
some modifications, in MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and
on coins of the Maccabean period. The transition from this
ancient character to the square letters* which are used in exist-
ing Hebrew MSS. and in the printed Bibles must have been prac-
tically complete in our Lord’s time, since He refers to the yodh
as the smallest letter, and to the κερέαι which are peculiar to
the square alphabet (Mt. v. 18). That the change had begun °

1 See W. R. Smith, O. 7. in F Church, pp. 56f.; Driver, Samuel,
p. xxxix.; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T., p. 64. Among the
Rabbis of Jamnia were Eleazar, Joshua, and Akiba, the reputed teachers of
Aquila; see Edersheim-White, History of the Jewish Nation, pp. 132 ff.,
174.4.

2 See pp. 39 f

«

3 yan ans, ery the Talmud calls it, NW "3; see Driver, Samuel, |
pp. ix. ff. |

The Septuagint as a Version. 321

in the MSS. employed by the Alexandrian translators’ may be
gathered from the fact that they repeatedly confuse letters
which are similar in the square character but not in the archaic.
Professor Driver holds that the alphabet of their MSS. was a
transitional one, in which } and ’, 2 and 9, 4 7 and D, as well
as 2 and 3, 7 and 9, were more or less difficult to distinguish’.

A few examples may be given from Driver’s list. (1) 1 Regn.
li. 29 ὀφθαλμῷ (f'Y, for JY); xil. 3 ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (3 "JY, for
‘2 IY); Ps. xxi. (xxll.) 17 @pvéay (N53, for N35); Isa. xxix. 13
μάτην δὲ σέβονταί pe (ΤΙΣ ONND IN), for NX ΠΝ "ΠΠ))}.
(2) 1 Regn. vi. 20 διελθεῖν (TAY, for TVS); Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 25
Tov υἱὸν αὐτῆς (I for NID)?; 1 Regn. iv. 10 ταγμάτων (595, for
1599), xxi. 7 Δωὴκ 6 Σύρος (SOINT INT, for ‘INT 4).

Another cause of confusion was the scrifiio defectiva in the
case of ἡ and ° where they represent long vowels, e.g. 1 Regn.
xii. 8 καὶ κατῴκισεν αὐτούς (OILY, for DID); Ps, v. tit. ὑπὲρ τῆς
κληρονομούσης (nbn ON, for M> nn by); Job xix. 18 els τὸν
αἰῶνα (ody, for pony) ; Jer. vi. 23 ὡς πῦρ (UND, for YND). Abbre-
viations, also, probably gave rise to misunderstandings; see the
instances in Driver, of. cit, pp. lxiil. f., xx. note 2, and others
collected from Jeremiah by Streane, Double Text, p. 20.

In the case of numerals errors appear to have arisen from
the use of similar letters as numerical signs: e.g. 2 Regn. xxiv.
13 τρία ἔτη, JE ‘seven years,’ where ? has been read for ἃ. Here
(ἃ has the support of the Chronicler (1 Chron. xxi. 12): see
Konig in Hastings’ D.B., 111. p. 562.

Further, in the MSS. used by the Lxx. the words seem not
to have been separated by any system of punctuation or
spacing. On the Moabite stone* and in the Siloam inscrip-
tion® a point has been used for this purpose, but the Phoeni-

1 Except perhaps those which lay before the translators of the Penta-
teuch ; see Driver, /.c.

2 A specimen of such a script, but of much later date, may be seen in
Driver, of. cit., p. lxv.

3 Cf. Streane ad Joc. and on Jer. xx. 17.

4 See Driver, of. cit., p. lxxxvi., or Hastings’ D.Z. iii. art. Woad.

B Driver, ops tzi.; Ὁ. Xv.

5. S. 21

322 The Septuagint as a Version.

cian inscriptions are without punctuation, and so were probably
the early Biblical rolls. The division adopted by the Lxx. is
frequently at variance with that of the Massoretic text, and
is sometimes preferable to the latter, sometimes inferior; but
the differences witness to the absence of divisions in the
Hebrew MSS. and the non-employment of the final letters
TOA.
Thus Gen. xlix. 19, 20 αὐτῶν κατὰ πόδας. ’Aonp...= WN + DIPY
(fi, WS :3py); Deut. xxvi. 5 Συρίαν ἀπέβαλεν Ξε TIN’ DIN
(fH, TAN YOON); 1 Regn. i. 1 ev Νασείβξε A'SII (fA, 418 fA);
Ps. xliii. (xliv.) 5 ὁ θεός μου ὁ évreAdSuevos=TSD TON (fA, DTN
M3); Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 15 διὰ τί ἔφυγεν ἀπὸ σοῦ ὁ Ἄπις; -- 5) ΜΝ)
FN (PA, ANDI 9.12); Zech. xi. 7 εἰς τὴν Χανραν την ee (fa 12?
9),

Lastly, almost every page of the Lxx. yields evidence that
the Hebrew text was as yet unpointed. Vocalisation was in
fact only traditional until the days of the Massora, and the
tradition which is enshrined in the Massoretic points differs,
often very widely, from that which was inherited or originated
by the Alexandrian translators’.

A few examples may suffice: Gen. xv. 11 καὶ συνεκάθισεν
αὐτοῖς = DAS Avs) (fF, ONS AW); Num. xvi. 5 ewéoxertar= 23
(fH, 7P3) ; I Regn. xii. 2 καθήσομαι -- hw? (ΖΕ, 3); Nah. iii. ὃ
μερίδα ᾿Αμμών = δὶς ΓῺ (SH, HON N51); Isa. ix. ὃ θάνατον (33,
fA, 231) ἀπέστειλεν Κύριος ἐπὶ Ἰακώβ. In proper names the
differences of the vocalisation are still more frequent and appa-
rent, e.g. Μαδιάμ (ND); Βαλαάμ (BYPR), Τόμορρα (MOY), Xodod-
λογόμορ (WYPITZ), Φασγά (AIDB), Σαμψών (WIL).

(c) One other preliminary consideration remains. The
student must not leave out of sight the present state of the
Greek text. A homogeneous text is not to be found even in the

1 Jerome in the last years of the 4th century knows nothing of a system of
vowel points ; see Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus fiir die A Tliche
Texthritik (Gottingen, 1875).

The Septuagint as a Version. 323

oldest of our uncial MSS., and the greater number of Greek
codices are more or less influenced by the Hexapla. The
Lucianic text, if free from this vice, is subject to another, the
Antiochian passion for fulness, which encouraged the blending
or the accumulation of various renderings and thus created
doublets’. Besides these recensional errors there are the mis-
takes, itacistic or other, which are incident to the transmission
of ancient books. The state of the Greek text has been
touched upon already, and will form the subject of a chapter
in the third part of this book. Here it is sufficient to notice
the presence of mixture and corruption as a factor in the
problem which the student of the Lxx. must keep in view.

II. We are now prepared to deal with those features of
the version which are not incidental but characteristic of the
translators’ principles and methods.

1. The reader of the Alexandrian Greek Bible is con-
tinually reminded that he has before him a translation of a
Semitic writing.

(a) As a whole the version aims at fidelity, and often
pursues this aim to the extent of sacrificing the Greek idiom.
The first chapter of Genesis will supply instances of extreme
literalness, e.g. UV. 4 ava μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ava μέσον τοῦ
σκότους" U. 5 ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα μία: τ΄. 20
ἑρπετὰ ψυχῶν ζωσῶν. As we proceed, we are still conscious of
moving in an atmosphere which is Hebrew and not Greek.
Hebrew constructions meet us everywhere; such phrases as
ἀφικέσθαι ἕως πρός τινα, παρασιωπᾷν ἀπό τινος, προστιθέναι (τοῦ)
ποιεῖν, λαλεῖν ἐν χειρί τινος, ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτην, ἀπὸ γενεῶν εἰς
γενεάς (ews γενεᾶς καὶ γενεᾶς, εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν), may be found
in the Prophets and Hagiographa as well as in the Pentateuch.
Occasionally the translators set the sense at defiance in their

1 Cf. Driver, of. cit., p. lviii.
PJ τς. τ

324 The Septuagint as a Version.

desire to be true to what they conceive to be the meaning of
the Hebrew, as when in 1 Regn. i. 26 they render °3 (δέομαι)
by ἐν ἐμοί. In some books, especially perhaps in the Psalms
and in Isaiah, entire sentences are unintelligible from this cause.
Even when the Alexandrians have rightly understood their
original they have generally been content to render it into
Greek with little regard for rhythm or style, or the requirements
of the Greek tongue.

(ὁ) To the same spirit of loyalty may be ascribed in part
the disposition to transliterate words which present unusual
difficulty. The number of transliterations other than those of
proper names is considerable’, and they are to be found in
nearly all the translated books. In some cases they are due
to misunderstanding, as in Jud. 1. 19 Ῥῆχαβ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς
where 5}72(7m) seems to have been read as 2) Ἴ2Π, and 357 con-
sequently treated as a proper name; in others, the Hebrew
form is purposely maintained (e.g. aAAnAowa, ἀμήν). But in
the majority of instances transliteration may be taken for a
frank confession of ignorance or doubt; it is clearly such, for
example, in Jud. viii. 7 ἐν ταῖς ἁβαρκηνείν, 4 Regn. il. 14 ἀφφώ
(sin FN), Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 40 πάντες ἁσαρημὼθ ἕως νάχαλ
Kedpwv. As in the first and third of these specimens, the
article is often included; and when a proper name is trans-
literated, the name is sometimes for this reason not easily
recognised ; thus Ramathaim (1 Regn. i. 1) becomes “AppaGauu
(oynpin). Similarly the 7 local is taken over in the trans-
literation, as in Gen. xxxv. 6 eis Λούζα = m2. Sometimes two

words are rolled into one, as in Οὐλαμμαύς = 115 DDI (Gen.

1 Thus Hatch and Redpath take note of 3g transliterations, exclusive of
proper names, under A alone. They are thus distributed: Pentateuch, 4;
Histories, 26; Psalms &c., 3; Prophets, 6. The principles by which the
LXX. appear to have been guided in these transliterations of Hebrew con-
sonants and vowel-sounds are expounded by Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 107 ff.

2 Unless the a is here prothetic, which is however less probable.

The Septuagint as a Version. 325

xxvill. 19)’. A doublet is occasionally created by adding a
translation to the transliterated Hebrew, e.g. in 1 Regn. vi.
II, 15 τὸ θέμα ἐργάβ, vil. 4 τὰ ἄλση ᾿Ασταρώθ, xxiii. 14 ἐν
Macepeu ἐν τοῖς στενοῖς. In the case of a significant proper
name, where it is necessary for the reader to be made aware
of its meaning, the Lxx. sometimes translate without trans-
literating, e.g. Gen. ili. 20 ἐκάλεσεν “Adam τὸ ὄνομα τῆς γυναικὸς
Ζωή (TD); xi. g ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Σύγχυσις (033); XIV.
13 ἀπήγγειλεν ᾿Αβρὰμ τῷ περάτῃ (12913).

2. The Alexandrian translators, however, while loyal to
their original, sometimes even to a fault, manifest nothing like
the slavish adherence to the letter with which Aquila has been
charged. They often amplify and occasionally omit; they
interpret, qualify or refine ; they render the same Hebrew words
by more than one Greek equivalent, even in the same context ;
they introduce metaphors or grammatical constructions which
have no place in the Hebrew text and probably at no time
had a place there, or they abandon figures of speech where they
exist in the original.

(a) Slight amplifications, which are probably not to be
ascribed to a fuller text, occur frequently in all parts of the
LXX.; eg. the insertion of λέγων before a quotation, or of
pronouns which are not expressed in the Hebrew, or of single
words added in order to bring out the sense, as in Gen.
XXXIV. 10 ἰδοὺ ἡ γῆ πλατεῖα ἐναντίον ὑμῶν, xl. 17 ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν
γενημάτων ὧν ὃ βασιλεὺς Φαραὼ ἐσθίει, Deut. vii. τό φάγῃ
πάντα τὰ σκῦλα τῶν ἐθνῶν (Heb. ‘thou shalt eat all the nations’).
The translators frequently manifest a desire to supply what
the original had omitted or to clear up what was ambiguous:
they name the subject or object when the Hebrew leaves it

1 Cf. Hieron. Quaest. hebr. p. 44 (ed. Lagarde), De situ et nom. pp. τοῦ,
158. Pearson (Praef. paraen. p.6) endeavours to defend the Lxx. even
here.

326 The Septuagint as a Version.

to be understood (Gen. xxix. 9 αὐτὴ yap ἔβοσκεν ta πρόβατα
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς, Heb. ‘fed them’; xxxiv. 14 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς
Συμεὼν καὶ Λευὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ Δείνας υἱοὶ δὲ Λείας, Heb.
‘and they said unto them’), or they add a clause which seems
to follow as a necessary consequence (2 Regn. xii. 21 ἀνέστης
καὶ ἔφαγες ἄρτον kal πέπωκας: XVI. 10 Kal ἄφετε αὐτὸν καὶ
οὕτως καταράσθω =???" (Ρ 73) 33), or they make good δὴ apo-
siopesis (Exod. xxxil. 32 εἰ μὲν ἀφεῖς αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῶν
ages). Less frequently they insert a whole sentence which is
of the nature of a gloss, as in Gen. 1. 9 καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ
ὑποκάτω TOD οὐρανοῦ εἰς Tas συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν Kal whOn ἡ ξηρά,
which is merely an expansion of καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως in the terms
of the preceding command συναχθήτω κτλ.; or t Regn. i. 5 ὅτι
οὐκ ἦν αὐτῇ παιδίον, a reminiscence of v. 2 τῇ “Avva οὐκ ἦν
παιδίον. On the other hand the Lxx. not uncommonly present
a shorter text, as compared with M.T., e.g. Gen. xxxl. 21 καὶ
διέβη τὸν ποταμόν (Heb. ‘he rose up and passed over’), ib. 31
εἶπα yap Μή ποτε κτλ. (Heb. ‘Because I was afraid, for I
sald...’); 1 Regn. i. g μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐν Σηλώ (Heb.
‘after they had eaten in Shiloh and after they had drunk’).

(2) The translators frequently interpret words which call
for explanation. Hebraisms are converted into Greek phraseo-
logy, e.g. 13333 becomes ἀλλογενής (Exod. xii. 43), and ΓΞ
ἐνιαύσιος (Num. vii. 15); OXY ow IN] is rendered by ἐγὼ δὲ
ἀλογός εἰμι (Exod. vi. 12). A difficult word or phrase is ex-
changed for one more intelligible to a Greek reader; thus
ἡ ἔρημος is used for 3435 (Gen. ΧΙ. 9); ‘Urim and Thummim’
become ἡ δήλωσις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια (Exod. xxviil. 26); in the Psalms
ἀντιλήμπτωρ is written for 13}2 (Ps. ill. 4), βοηθός for W¥ (xvil. = xviii.
3), and γλῶσσα for 1133 (Ps. xv. = xvi. 9); similarly in Jer. ii. 23
τὸ πολυάνδριον ‘the cemetery’ stands for N20, 1.e. the valley of
Hinnom. An effort is made to represent Hebrew money by its
nearest Greek equivalent ; thus for opy we have δίδραχμον (Gen.

The Septuagint as a Version. 327

Xxill. 15, Deut. xxii. 29, 2 Esdr. xv. 15) as well as σίκλος, and
for 1A ὀβολός. Occasionally a whole clause is interpreted
rather than translated ; e.g. Gen. 1. 2 7 δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατα-
σκεύαστος, Exod. iil. 14 ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ὦν, Ps. xl. (xxxix.) 7 σῶμα δὲ
κατηρτίσω μοι. A dogmatic interest has been detected in some
of these paraphrastic renderings, chiefly where the Lxx. have
endeavoured to avoid the anthropomorphisms of the original;}
examples are most frequent in the Pentateuch, e.g. Gen. xviii. 25/
μηδαμῶς ov ποιήσεις (Heb. ‘that be far from thee’); Exod. iv. 16
σὺ δὲ αὐτῷ ἔσῃ τὰ πρὸς TOV θεόν (πον; XXIV. IO εἶδον τὸν
τόπον οὗ εἱστήκει ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (Heb. ‘they saw the God of
Israel,’ Aq. εἶδον τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ); ib. 11 τῶν ἐπιλέκτων τοῦ Ἴσ-
ραὴλ οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ cis; Num. xii. 8 τὴν δόξαν (NIDM) Κυρίου
εἶδεν ; Exod. xv. 3 Κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους (ποτ ΟΝ Deut.
XIV. 23 6 τόπος ὃν ἂν ἐκλέξηται Κύριος 6 θεός cov ἐπικληθῆναι (130%)
TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖ; Jos. iv. 24 ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κυρίου (MT),
Such renderings manifest the same spirit of reverence which
led the LXx. to write ὁ κύριος or the anarthrous Κύριος, or
not infrequently o Geos, for the Tetragrammaton, just as their
Palestinian brethren read for it ‘278 or Dyes), In other
places the Lxx. appear to be guided by the Jewish Hadacha, \
e.g. Gen. li. 2 συνετέλεσεν ὃ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ (WIAD,
Aq. τῇ ἑβδόμῃ); Lev. xxiv. 7 ἐπιθήσετε ἐπὶ τὸ θέμα λίβανον
καθαρὸν καὶ dra"; xix. 7 ἐὰν δὲ βρώσει βρωθῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ,
ἄθυτόν ἐστιν (Heb. ‘an abomination’)*. Of Haggada 4150 there
are clear traces, as in Exod. ΧΙ]. 40 ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ
Xavaav, 1 Regn. 1. 14 εἶπεν αὐτῇ τὸ παιδάριον Ἤλεί *; v. 6

1 See W. R. Smith, O. 7. in ¥. Church, p. 77. Aquila, as we gather
from Origen and now know from his published fragments (p. 39 f.), wrote
the word in archaic Hebrew characters, which however were read as
“ote cel salt as well as frankincense was used in the actual ritual of
their period” (W. R. Smith, of. czt., p. 77).

3 On xxiii. 11 see p. 1

rp
4 **An evident attempt to shield the priest from the charge of harshness”
(H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 10).

328 The Septuagint as a Version.

καὶ μέσον τῆς χώρας αὐτῆς ἀνεφύησαν μύες, καὶ ἐγένετο σύγχυσις

/ , ΕἸ - Ls
θανάτου μεγάλη ἐν τῇ πόλει.

(c) The Lxx. render the same Hebrew word by more than
one Greek equivalent, sometimes even in the same context. In
some cases the change appears to be either arbitrary, or due
to the desire of avoiding monotony ; e.g. in Ps. xxxvi, (xxxvil.)
YL is translated by ἁμαρτωλός in vv. 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21,
32, 40, but by ἀσεβής in vv. 28, 35, 38. In many others it may
be ascribed to the circumstance that certain common Hebrew
words take a special colouring from the contexts in which they
occur, and must be rendered accordingly. Thus jj, ‘give’,’
which belongs to this class has received in the Lxx. more than
30 different renderings; sometimes it is translated by a para-
phrase, e.g. Jos. xiv. 12 αἰτοῦμαί σε (212A), Deut. xxi. 8 ἵνα μὴ
γένηται (J 28); when it is rendered directly, the following
Greek verbs (besides διδόναι and its compounds) are used to
represent it: ayev, ἀποστέλλειν, ἀποτίνειν, ἀφιέναι, δεικνύναι,
δωρεῖσθαι, ἐᾷν, ἐκτιθέναι, ἐκτίνειν, ἐκχέειν, ἐλεᾷν, ἐμβάλλειν, ἐγκα-
ταλείπειν, ἐπαίρειν, ἐπιβάλλειν, ἐπιτιθέναι, ᾿ἐπιχέειν, ἐφιστάναι,
ἱστάναι, καταβάλλειν, καθιστάναι, κατατάσσειν, κρεμάζειν, παρα-
τιθέναι, περιτιθέναι, ποιεῖν, προεκφέρειν, προσιέναι, προστιθέναι,
στηρίζειν, συνάγειν, φέρειν. This is ἃ somewhat extreme in-
stance, but a glance at Hatch and Redpath will shew that
there are many which do not fall far behind it, and that in the
majority of cases the ordinary words of the Hebrew Bible
have more than one equivalent in the Greek of the Lxx.
The Alexandrian translators have evidently made an honest
endeavour to distinguish between the several connotations of
the Hebrew words. Thus, to take a few examples: 7’? 15
variously rendered by ἄκρον, ἀρχή, κλίτος, μέρος, πέρας, τάξις,

1 The example is suggested by Dr Hatch (Zssays, p. 18), who gives many
of the passages at length. The zadex Hebraeus at the end of Trom will
enable the student to add other instances (besides διδόναι and its compounds).

The Septuagint as a Version. 329

χρόνας ; among the equivalents of 13} are ἀπόκρισις, ἐπερώτη-
σις, κρίμα, πρᾶγμα, τρόπος, φωνή ; for 2? we have not only
καρδία, ψυχή, φρήν, νοῦς, διάνοια, στόμα, φρόνησις, but στῆθος
and even σάρξ; for 1P5, ἀριθμεῖν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, ἐτάζειν, ἐκδι-
kev; for TPIS, δικαιοσύνη, ἐλεημοσύνη, εὐφροσύνη. Conversely,
the same Greek word often serves for several Hebrew words.
Thus διαθήκη, which is generally the Lxx. rendering of 13,
stands also for NIP (Exod. xxvii. 21, xxxi. 7), TA (Dan.
ix. 13, Lxx.) and even 737 (Deut. ix. 5); ἐξαιρεῖν, λυτροῦν,
ῥύεσθαι are all used to represent 283; εἴδωλον appears in different
contexts for 58, miox, bd, mp2, Sya, San, yen, ayy, 2BB, OY,
7pY, D'DIA. Even in the same context or verse this some-
times occurs. Thus in Gen. i.—ili. γῇ translates 78, TTS,
mw, IY; in Exod. xii. 23 732 and D8 are both represented
by παρέρχεσθαι; in Num. xv. 4 f. θυσία is used both for 2D
and M3!. In such cases it is difficult to acquit the translators
of carelessness; but they are far less frequent than instances
of the opposite kind. On the whole the Lxx. even in the
Pentateuch shews no poverty of words, and considerable skill
in the handling of synonyms.

(2) In reference to metaphors the Alexandrians allow
themselves some discretion. Thus in Gen. vi. 2 ‘the sons of
God’ become οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ; in Num. xxiv. 17 ‘a sceptre
(Dav) shall rise’ is rendered by ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος: in Deut.
x. 16 ‘the foreskin of your heart’ is turned euphemistically into
τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμών; ; in Isa. ix. 14 μέγαν καὶ μικρόν represents
Heb. ‘both branch and rush.’ Occasionally the translators
indulge in Javonomasia, without authority from the Heb., e.g.
Gen. xxv. 27 οἰκῶν οἰκίαν = DTN aw; xxvi. 18 καὶ ἐπωνόμα-
σεν αὐτοῖς ὀνόματα ΓΟ; ine δ). Job xxvil. 12 κενὰ κενοῖς;
XXX. 13 ἐξετρίβησαν τρίβοι pov.

(ec) Lastly, the reader of the Septuagint must expect to
find a large number of actual blunders, due in part perhaps to

330 The Septuagint as a Version.

a faulty archetype, but chiefly to the misreading or misunder-
standing of the archetype by the translators. Letters or clauses
have often been transposed; omissions occur which may be
explained by homoioteleuton ; still more frequently the trans-
lation has suffered through an insufficient knowledge of Hebrew
or a failure to grasp the sense of the context. It follows that
the student must be constantly on his guard against errors
which may easily result from too ready an acceptance of the
evidence offered by the Alexandrian version. Taken as a whole,
and judged in the light of the circumstances under which it
was produced, it is a monument of the piety, the skill, and the
knowledge of the Egyptian Jews who lived under the Ptolemies,
and it is an invaluable witness to the pre-Christian text of the
Old Testament. But whether for textual or for hermeneutical
purposes it must be used with caution and reserve, as the
experience of the Ancient Church shews. With this subject
we shall deal in a future chapter; it is sufficient to note the
fact here.

III. The beginner, for whose use this chapter is chiefly
intended, will now be prepared to open his Septuagint and his
Hebrew Bible, and to compare the two in some familiar
contexts. The following notes may assist him in a first effort
to grapple with the problems which present themselves.

GEN. xv. I—6.
I. Ta ῥήματα.. ῥῆμα, Heb. 724...027. Aéyov="0N2; cf.
v. 4, where, as elsewhere, Aq. renders, τῷ λέγειν. Ὑπερασπίζω cov,

Heb. ‘am a shield to thee’; cf. Deut. xxxill. 29, Prov. ii. 7, al.
Ὃ μισθός σου πολύς. Vulg., A.V., R.V. connect Heb. with the

foregoing, supplying}. 2. Δεσπότης = "218, as in v. ὃ, and not
infrequently in Jer. and Dan. (LXX.). ᾿Απολύομαι arexvos—an
interpretation rather than a literal rendering of "WY Win, Yios
Μάσεκ τῆς οἰκογενοῦς pou= NI NA Pld ja: cf. Hieron. guaest.

1 Philo has ἀπελεύσομαι (see below).

The Septuagint as a Version. 331

im Gen. “ubi nos habemus Et filius Masec vernaculae meae, in
Hebraeo scriptum est 3 pd {3}, quod Aquila transtulit ὁ υἱὸς

τοῦ ποτίζοντος οἰκίαν pov...Theodotio vero καὶ vids τοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς
οἰκίας μου." Δαμασκὸς ᾿Ἑλιέζερ, a literal rendering of the Heb.,
leaving the difficulty unsolved. 3. Ἐπειδή =}, and so in xviii.

21, xix. 19; did LXxX. read DN? Οἰκογενής here=M3N Ja. KAn-
ρονομήσει we—a Hebraism, Ξε κληρονόμος pov ἔσται. 4. Kai εὐθὺς
..eyévero= 1137}. Φωνή =131, as in xi, 1, but apparently not
elsewhere. Ὅς. .«οὗτος, σι TWN. Ἔκ σοῦ, euphemism for Heb.
TYPID, unless the LXX. read FPP. 5. Πρὸς αὐτόν, Heb. 6. Καὶ
ἐπίστευσεν -- ἢ) 2) Δ) (cf. Haupt ad ἴοε.). ᾿Αβράμ,κ Heb. Τῷ θεῷ
Ξ- ΠῚΠ3.: ᾿Ἐλογίσθη....εἰς dux., Heb. ‘he counted it...for righteous-

ness’; possibly the LXX. read as in Ps. cvi. 31 (M.T.), where
they have the same rendering. The N.T. follows Lxx. here
(jas 23, Ror. iv. "3, Gal. in. 6).

EXOD. xix. 16—24.

16. ᾿Ἐγένετο δὲ... καὶ ἐγένοντο -- "75. ΠΡ), Γενηθέντος πρὸς op
θρον = Pan nin, "Ex ὄρους Sewd, Heb. ‘on the mountain.’
Φωνή, cod. F with fA pr. καί. 17. Ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος 3.*(om. Σ. AF),
Heb. ‘at the nether part (N'NND3) of the mountain.’ 18. Διὰ τὸ
καταβεβηκέναι, an idiomatic rendering of ὙΠ) WN7IBID. Tov θεόν
=i11', cf. 21. ‘O καπνὸς, Heb. ‘the smoke of it.’ Ἐξέστη, Heb.
as v. 16 where LXX. renders ἐπτοήθη. Ὃ Aads=DYN; M.T.,
Wi. 19. Προβαίνουσαι ἰσχυρότεραι -Ξ [ΠῚ Wi. 20. Ἐκάλεσεν
...Movonv, Heb. πον; the > after NP is dropt in accordance
with Greek idiom! 21. Aéywv, , Heb. “Eyyicwouw, a soften-
ing of the Heb. ‘break forth’ (D171); in the next verse ἐγγίζειν
=Wi) mi. 22. καί, Heb. ‘and also’ (O33), usually καί ye, Aq. καὶ
καίγε (Burkitt, dgud/a, p. 13). Κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ, a double ren-
dering of myn bx. ᾿Απαλλάξῃ am αὐτῶν : another instance of
euphemism: Heb. ‘break forth upon them’ (Aq. διακόψῃ ἐν αὐτοῖς).

23. Προσαναβῆναι: the double compound occurs six times in Jos.
_xi—xix. ᾿Αφόρισαι: the verb is here as in v. 12 the equivalent

of 533 Ai. ‘enclose,’ but with the added thought of consecration
which is latent in ἀφορίζειν, ἀφόρισμα, ἀφορισμός (cf. Exod. xxix.

1 Or, as Dr Nestle suggests, it may have been taken as introducing the
acc., as in later Hebrew or in Aramaic.

332 The Septuagint as a Version.

26, Ezech. xx. 40). 24. ᾿Απολέσῃ, euphemistic, as ἀπαλλάξῃ in
v.22; Aq. again, διακόψῃ.

NUM. xxiil. 7—I0.

7. IlapaBodnv: here for the first time =v, Lyons Pent.,
parabula. Μεσοποταμίας, 1.6. O°73 DIS (Gen. xxiv. 10), or 15
DS (Gen. xxv. 20): here an interpretation of the simple DIS.
"Ar’, λέγων, Heb. ᾿Ἐπικατάρασαί μοι, and καταράσωμαι in v. 8,
represent DY, whilst ἄρασαι answers to TN, and ἀράσωμαι (v. 8)
to 3p3, an unusual instance of carelessness or poverty of
language on the part of the translator; ὀρέων (v. 9) is equally
unfortunate as a rendering of O°, while on the other hand
ὄψομαι, προσνοήσω fairly represent the Heb. πΠροσνοεῖν renders
NY again in Job xx. 9, xxiv. 15. IO. ᾿Ἐξακριβάζεσθαι (Num.}, Job},
Dan. LXx.}), a late form for ἐξακριβοῦν in LXX. and Jos. To
σπέρμα, Heb. ‘the dust’: did Lxx. read YN, or have they glossed
“EY? Kai ris ἐξαριθμήσεται, reading 15D* D1. Δήμους Ἰσραήλ,
Heb. ‘the fourth part of Israel’ (Aq. τοῦ τετάρτου ’I.). “H ψυχή
μου, as Heb., whilst the next word is sacrificed to an alliteration

᾿ (ψυχή, ψυχαῖς). To σπέρμα pov is a gloss on ‘NAS (cf. Brown,
Heb. and Eng. Lex., p. 31); ὡς τὸ σπέρμα τούτων, Heb. ‘as he.’

This passage illustrates both the greater freedom which the
Greek translators allowed themselves in poetical contexts, and
their comparative incompetence to deal with them.

DEUT. vi. I—9.

1. Αὗται αἱ ἐντολαί, Heb. ‘this is the commandment.’ ‘O
θεὸς ἡμῶν, Heb. ‘your God.’ Οὕτως, , Heb. Ἑἰσπορεύεσθε,
Heb. ‘go over’; the Greek has lost the local reference, as in
iv. 14, 4 Regn. iv. 8. 2. “Iva φοβῆσθε.. ὑμῶν, Heb. 2nd pers.
sing. Σήμερον, a 31. Οἱ υἱοὶ κτλ., Heb. ‘thy son and thy
son’s son.’ “Iva μακροημερεύσητε, Heb. ‘and that thy days may
be prolonged’; paxponpepevery (μακροήμερος γίνεσθαι) represents
this or a similar phrase in iv. 40, ν. 30, ΧΙ. 9, 21, XXxxii. 47; μακρο-
χρόνιος, μακροχρονίζειν also occur in iv. 40, γι 16, XViL..20,
Xxxil. 22. The group is not found elsewhere in the LXX. except
in Exod.!, Jud.1, and in Sirach. 3. Aotvvac , M.T.; perhaps

added to complete the sense of the Greek; yet see v. Io ΩΡ nn?).

4. Καὶ ταῦτα... Αἰγύπτου A, Heb; perhaps repeated from iv. 45
toform an introduction to Τὰ aver 5. Acavoias...uyns...duva-
pews. The readings vary ; for διανοίας AF Luc. read καρδίας, and
the text of B is here super rasuram; for δυνάμεως some texts
give ἰσχύος. The N.T. citations (Mt. xxil. 37 = Mc. xii. 29 ff,

The Septuagint as a Version. 333

Le. x. 27) present much diversity, giving both renderings of
3222 and both of FIND ; cf. Dittmar, VY. 7. zz Novo, p. sof.
6. καὶ ἐν τῇ Wuyn cov, κα Heb.; for ‘in thy heart’ Heb. has
‘upon,’ “as it were imprinted there (Jer. xxxi. 33)” 7. Προ-
βιβάσεις, Heb. ‘shalt impress them upon’; Aq. δευτερώσεις, as if
the root were 13%. Ἔν αὐτοῖς -- 3. Καθήμενος κτλ., Heb. ‘in thy
sitting &c.’; ἐν οἴκῳ, ἐν ὁδῷ are inexact, Heb. ‘in thy house,’ ‘in
the way.’ 8. ᾿Ασάλευτον (F, ἀσάλευτα) = NEYD?, ‘for frontlets,’
circlets or tires for the head: Lyons Pent. (reading σαλευτά),
mobilta. ᾿Ασάλευτον occurs in the same phrase in Exod. xiii. 16,
Deut. xi. 18. Aq. seems to have rendered the Heb. here and in
Exod. by vakra, i.e. ‘compressed, ‘tight,’ which Field (Hexap/a,
1. 103) explains as the “thecas in quas schedulae membraneae
...Inferciebantur.” The LXX. rendering may be an Alexandrian

name for the φυλακτήριον, but the whole subject is obscure.
9. Φλιάς -- ΠΣ", as in Exod. xu. 7 ff.
Jos. x. 12—14.

12. Ἧ ἡμέρᾳ mapédxev...um0xeiptov—idiomatic rendering of
a>. nn Dia. The words that follow (ἡνίκα... Ἰσραήλ) seem to
be a gloss derived from v. 10. Kai εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς, Heb. ‘and he
said in the eyes of Israel.’ Στήτω, Heb. ‘be still.’ Γαβαών, fil
‘Gibeon.’ Aldor, fH ‘Aijalon’ (28); cf. 2 Chron. xi. 10 Α,.
Αἰαλών. 13. Ἔν στάσει-- DY, which is thus distinguished from
the verb represented by ἔστη. ‘O θεός, Heb. a, Ag. τὸ ἔθνος.
Unless a primary error is to be suspected here, the LXx. has
glossed its original, from motives of piety. After the stanza
JH inserts a reference to the Book of Jashar, which is wanting
in non-Hexaplaric texts of the Lxx.; cod. G adds, * οὐχὶ τοῦτο
γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ βιβλίου τοῦ εὐθοῦς γ΄. Οὐ προεπορεύετο KTH, a loose
rendering of Heb. DYDA DVD NIDD PN NP. 14. Ἡμέρα τοιαύτη οὐδὲ
TO πρότερον οὐδὲ TO ἔσχατον, a good example of a conscientious
compromise between idiomatic and literal modes of rendering
(cf. Heb.). ᾿Ανθρώπου, WS Dia. Συνεπολέμησεν τῷ Ἰ., Heb.
‘fought for Israel.’

JuD. v. 28—30%.
28. &® here omits the difficult word 232) ΠῚ (GA, καὶ κατεμάν-

1 Driver, ad doc.
2 In this passage the text of Bin 0.7. 7” Greek, i. 489, should be compared
with that of A (ed. Brooke and McLean).

334 The Septuagint as a Version.

θανεν). ᾿Ἐκτὸς τοῦ τοξικοῦ, ‘forth from the loophole’; cf. Symm.
in Ezek. xl. 16 θυρίδες τοξικαί: δὰ διὰ τῆς δικτυωτῆς, ‘through the
lattice’ (cf. 4 Regn. i. 2, Ezek. xli. 16). ἘἘπιβλέπουσα.. ‘S.eupe in
A appears to be a supplementary gloss. Ἠσχύνθη (B) confuses
vw polel with 12 £a/; the general sense of the former is given
by ἠσχάτισεν A. For doyariten cf. 1 Macc. v. 53; has it been
suggested here by its similarity to the word used in B? Modes:

A more literally ἴχνη, but πούς represents DYS elsewhere, e.g.

Ps... li. (uti) ap POV, RXR. Bo ν 20. «Αἱ σοφαὶ ἄρχουσαι: A, again
aiming at a literal rendering, σοφαὶ ἀρχουσῶν. On the other
hand B’s ἀπέστρεψεν λόγους αὐτῆς ἑαυτῇ is Close and yet idiom-
atic, while A’s ἀπεκρίνατο ἐν ῥήμασιν αὐτῆς goes too far afield;
the latter appears to be a Hexaplaric correction (Field, ad loc.).
30. Οὐχ εὑρήσουσιν αὐτὸν διαμερίζοντα σκῦλα; so GBA; Heb. ‘are
they not finding, [are they not] dividing booty?’ Lxx. seem

to have read pon for 1pon. Οἰκτείρμων οἰκτειρήσει B, φιλιάζων
φίλοις A ; both, while labouring to keep up the alliteration of the
Heb., miss its point through ignorance of a rare use of DM1!; for

φιλιάζειν cf. xiv. 20 B, 2 Chron. xix. 2. Ποικιλτών (A, ΠΕΣ
misses the dual ‘embroidery on both sides’ (R. V.), or ‘a couple of
pieces,’ “ precisely as D°NOM above” (Moore). Βάθη in A seems
to be an error for βαφή, which is found in several cursives ; see
Field, ad loc., and Lagarde’s Lucian. Τῷ τραχήλῳ αὐτοῦ oxvAa=
apparently δον ΩΣ M.T. ‘for the necks of the spoil.’ @4
substitutes the usual ἀνατολή for the spirited and literal rendering
of Β (cf. Ps. xviii.=xix. 7), and appears to have read 11233 ;
el. FS. sim (XX, ) ἢ:

This passage is a severe test of the translator’s knowledge
and skill, and shews him perhaps at his worst.

REGN. xvil. 37—43-
37. Sil begins 11 TON, A, Luc. καὶ εἶπεν A. Ἔκ χειρὸς τοῦ

λέοντος...τῆς ἄρκου, an exact rendering ; ci. Gen. ix, See χειρὸς
πάντων τῶν θηρίων. Luc., Th., ἐκ στόματος τοῦ Δ. καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς τῆς
ἄρκου. Τοῦ ἀπεριτμήτου, ‘repeated from v. 36 (, ffl). 38. μαν-
dvav (Jud. iii. 16, 2 Regn. x. 4): +avrov, A, with fH. Περικεφα-
Aaiav x. περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ : Luc. (A), with SH, π. x. χ. ἐπέθηκεν
ἐπί κτλ., adding, καὶ ἐνέδυσεν αὐτῷ θώρακα. 39. Ἔζωσεν τὸν
Aaveid, sc. Saovd (cf. v. 38); Luc., ‘A, follow Heb. in making
David the object of the verb (ἐζώσατο Δαυς δ. ᾿Εκοπίασεν περι-
πατήσας (A, περιπατῆσαι) ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, ‘more than once he wearied

1 “Of the versions only [Vulg.] comes near the true sense” (Moore).
Jerome renders pulcherrima feminarum.

The Septuagint as a Version. 335

himself with walking (strove to walk) in them, reading ὟΝ 1,.as

yo

in Gen. xix. II INP}, LXX. παρελύθησαν (Wellhausen, Driver,

H. P. Smith). “Azaé καὶ Sis occurs also in Deut. ix. 13 (where,
as here, there is nothing in the Heb. to correspond), and in Neh.

ΧΙ. 20, where it represents DIAt DY. ᾿Αφαιροῦσιν αὐτὰ ἀπ᾽
αὐτοῦ, reading the verb probably as DD)}, and omitting ὙΠ,

40. Ai@ovs τελείους in B is obviously wrong, and A scarcely mends
matters by omitting the adjective. Correct, with Lucian, λίθους
λείους. Ἔν τῷ καδίῳ ποιμενικῷ : καδίον τε καδίσκος, here only in

LXxX., and perhaps unknown elsewhere: ποιμενικός (OVI) again

in Zach. xi. 15. Eis ovAdoynv, apparently for pipord (fA
DIP"), Aq. καὶ ἐν ἀναλεκτηρίῳ). 41 is wanting in G®, and
probably belongs to the same recension of the story which has
supplied = great gaps vv. I12—3I, 55—xviil. 5. 42. Heb. ‘looked
and saw’; so A, Luc. ITvuppdxns* cf. xvi. 12, Gen. xxv. 25.
43. ‘Qoei, jade by the translators to soften ee opprobrious κύων.
Ἐν ῥάβδῳ καὶ λίθοις, ΤΕ “τῇ (with) staves’; καὶ λίθοις is prob-
ably intended to make the question correspond to the statement
of v.40. The next words in the LXX. καὶ εἶπεν Δαυείδ Οὐχί, ἀλλ᾽

ἢ χείρω[ν] κυνός are evidently of the same character—“a singu-
larly vapid reply ” (Driver).

omen. bio.

II. Αὐτῶν πορευομένων ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἐλάλουν---8ὴ interesting
attempt to combine Greek idiom with some reminiscence of the
Heb. phrase; Lucian abandons the Heb., and corrects, αὐτῶν
πορευομένων καὶ λαλούντων. Ἵππος πυρός, Heb. ‘horses of fire’;
cf. immevs, Heb. ‘horsemen, v. 12. “Ava nee (113), cf. Gen.
i. 7 Ovexwpicev...dva μέσον. ᾿Ανελήμφθη, Heb. ‘went up’; the
Greek verb is apparently repeated from vv. 9, 10, where it mpd,
From this passage it has been borrowed by the translator of
Sirach (xlviil. 9, 14, xlix. 14, B), and by two writers in the N.T.
(‘Mc.’ xvi. 19, Acts i. 2, I 1) ; on its symbolical use see the writer’s
Apostles’ Creed, p- 7of. ‘Os, , Heb.; cf. 1 Regn. xvii. 43 (above).
12. Πάτερ πάτερ, Heb. ‘my father’ bis. Aréppnéev...pnypara, after
the Heb.: Lucian omits the noun, probably because of the harsh-
ness of the assonance. 13. Kai CA aaa ; Luc., καὶ ἀνείλατο.
Μηλωτήν, ‘sheepskin,’ an interpretation of NVIS (Vulg. pad/zum)
wherever it is used of Elijah’s characteristic raiment (3 Regn.
xix. 13, 19, 4 Regn. ii. ὃ ff.) ; cf. Heb. xi. 37 περιῆλθον ἐν μηλωταῖς.
᾿Ἔπάνωθεν, sc. αὐτοῦ (Heb., Luc.) Ἐλεισαῖε, Κα Heb.; καὶ ἐπέ-
στρεψεν ἜἘλεισαῖε is Hexaplaric, and wanting in B*, but

336 The Septuagint as a Version.

supplied by BA Luc. 14. Ὁ θεός, fA TN TIM. ᾿Αφφώ, a
transliteration answering to Ni7 AN (f#1.); in x. 10 the same
form = NDS, which was perhaps the reading before the LXX. in
this place. Aq. καίπερ αὐτός, but Symm. καὶ viv, whence Jerome
etiam nunc. 15. καὶ οἱ ἐν Ἰερειχώ: , καί A Luc. with fl. 16. 0
is not represented by 648 ; Luc. adds εἰσί. Υἱοὶ δυνάμεως, Senna.
Ἔν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ, ‘EXecoate, , Heb., Luc. 18. In A Luc. Aq. Th. fi
the verse begins ‘And they returned to him’; cf. v. 13.

Ps. cix. (cx.) I—4.
I. [0] κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, oy, my. Ἔκ δεξιῶν, 1%; in
v. 5 the same Gr. is used for *3%'D" Sy. Ὑποπόδιον τῶν πόδῶν gov:

ὑποκάτω is the reading of the best authorities in Mt. xxii. 44,
Mc. xii. 36, but ὕποπ. keeps its place in Lc.°- 4, Hebrews. 2. kat
κατακυρίευε-: ΠῚ apparently. 3. Mera σοῦ, 3} (SA, TDP). Ἢ ἀρχή
seems to point to a reading 73°) or ΠΞ3 2 (cf. Job xxx. 15, Isa.
xxxll. 8); τῶν ἁγίων (cov) =DW IP (PR TP); Symm. ἐν ὄρεσιν
(793 for IIMA) ἁγίοις. Ἔκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε,
though not quoted in the N.T., had an important place in post-
apostolic Christian teaching from Justin onwards (cf. Justin,
Tryph. cc. 63, 76, 83; Tert. adv. Marc. v.93; Cypr. dest. 17, ep.
63) ; inthe Arian age it was commonly cited on the Catholic side
—see e.g. Cyril. Hierus., catech. vil. 2, xi. 5; Athan. or. c.
Arian. iv. 27 sq.; de decr. 3, &c.; Hilar. de ¢rin. vi. τό, xii. 8.
The O.L. seems to have rendered uniformly ex utero ante luct-
ferum genut te, with the variant gezeravz in Tert. Z.c.; Jerome’s
‘Hebrew’ Psalter reads with ffl guasz de vulva orietur tibit ros
adolescentiae. The LXX. appear to have read their Heb. text

as ΤῈ ἼΠΡΟ on), perhaps dropping δ: as unintelligible.
4. Kara τὴν τάξιν, "2 by Aq. Symm. κατὰ λόγον. Cf. Heb. v.
6 ff., vii. 11, 15 (κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα). The translator probably
had before him the Lxx. of Gen. xiv. 18; he transliterates the
unique name ΡΣ 222 in the same way.

PROV. villi. 22—25, 30—3I.

22. "Exricév pe. So GRBAct. O.L. (condidit, creavit); codd.
23=V, 252, with Aq. Symm. Th. Vulg. (Jossedit), give ἐκτή-
garo—both possible meanings of ΠΡ. The former rendering
supplied the Arians with one of their stock arguments (cf. Athan. or.
c. Avian. ii. 44. 8qq.). Eis ἔργα αὐτοῦ, a loose and partial translation,
probably a confession of inability to understand the Heb.; Th.

The Septuagint as a Version. 337

πρὸ τῆς ἐργασίας ἀπὸ τότε. 23. ᾿Εθεμελίωσέν pe, reading apparently
‘71D’ where {#1 has °M30); cf. Ps. Ixxvii. (Ixxvili.) 69. Πρὸ τοῦ
τὴν γὴν ποιῆσαι, a poor rendering of Heb., probably adopted to
bring this clause into line with v. 24 with which the LXx. seem

to have connected it. 24. LXX. overlook sndoyn and 7233, unless
they intend to convey the general sense by ποιῆσαι and προελθεῖν.
25. Πάντων, , Jel. Τεννᾷ pe, ft ‘1 was brought forth.’ 30. dp-
μόζουσα = }ON, the word being referred by the translator to
JON ; similarly Symm. Th., ἐστηριγμένη. Ἢ προσέχαιρεν implies
the reading PPiwyY ; Di Di is connected by LXxX. with the next
clause. 31. Ὅτε.. συντελέσας : Heb. ‘rejoicing in the world of
his earth.” LXX. seem to have read mbana PNWID, as Lagarde
suggests ; had 53M stood in their text, οἰκουμένη would have
been ready at hand as a rendering (cf. 2 Regn. xxii. 16, Ps. ix. 9,
&c.). Evdpaivero, reading YYVYY. Υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων = DIN 223;
cf. υἱοὺς ᾿Αδάμ, Deut. xxxii. 8; DIS “3 is translated by this phrase
in Ps. x. (xi.) 4, and repeatedly in the poetical books.

JOB xix. 23—27.

23. Tis yap ἂν δῴη; See above p. 308; the phrase is repeated
in the Hebrew, but the translator contents himself with using it
once. ‘58 is ignored; its usual equivalent in the LXX. is νῦν or
οὖν, unless it is transliterated (p. 324). Eis τὸν αἰῶνα seems .to
represent sw, which in ΜΠ belongs to the next verse; Th.
translates it εἰς μαρτύριον, reading the word as 1Y?, 24. B* omits
ἐν πέτραις ἐνγλυφῆναι which appears to be necessary to the sense ;
in supplying it B@>SA prefix 7, a manifest gloss. 25. ᾿Αέναός
ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλύειν pe μέλλων, a paraphrase of Heb. ‘my Goel lives’;
aévaos in the LXx. elsewhere = DY, and δ} is ἀγχιστεύς (Ruth
lll. 9, etc.), or λυτρωτής (Ps. xvili. 14, Ixxvii. 35). 25—26. Ἐπὶ
γῆς ἀναστήσαι Or ἀναστήσει appears to correspond with ἼΞΨ by
(O°%P*) DIP’, and τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν ταῦτα with NNT ΞΡ) mY,
G4 points to MNT 530919 my nvne (Siegfried in Haupt ad Zoc.).
But the translator perhaps interprets his text in the light of the
doctrine of the Resurrection, which was accepted from Mac-
cabean times (cf. Job xlii. 17*, and see Dan. xii. 2, 2 Macc.
vli. 14, Χιϊ. 43); as cited by Clem. R. 1 Cor. 26 (ἀναστήσεις

τὴν σάρκα μου ταύτην τὴν ἀναντλήσασαν ταῦτα πάντα), the words
are brought into still nearer agreement with the faith of the

S. S. 22

338 The Septuagint as a Version.

Church; see Afostles Creed, p. 89f. Παρὰ yap Kupiov...cuvere-
λέσθη corresponds in position with words which ff divides and

MICAH v. I (iv. 14)—4 (3).
I. ᾿Ἐμφραχθήσεται θυγάτηρ ἐμφραγμῷ, ie. WW NA WANN.
Tas φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ: LXX. read Oe aw for’ DAW. 2. Byé-
λέεμ οἶκος Ἐφράθα: did LXX. read MOBS MB DME"MND? Ὀλιγο-

στὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ‘art little to be,’ as Heb. The passage is quoted
in Mt. ii. 6 in a Greek paraphrase! which substitutes οὐδαμῶς

ἐλαχίστη for ‘little to be,’ and τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν (ΒΡῈ) for ‘thousands’
(DON). 3. Ἕως καιροῦ τικτούσης τέξεται, apparently for ἕως καιροῦ
οὗ τίκτουσα τέξεται OF ἕ. K. τικτούσης ὅτε τέξεται. 4. Καὶ ὄψεται,
τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ were obelised in Hex. and find no place in M1;
the former has perhaps originated in a misreading of U1) as
MANN, so that καὶ oy. καὶ ποιμανεῖ is in fact a doublet. Κύριος,
subject; Heb. ‘in the strength of J.,’ the subject being the same
asin Uv. 1. Ὑπάρξουσιν, IAW); the LXx. read 110, connecting

the verb with the previous words; for 2) ξοὑπάρχειν cf. Ps.
liv. (lv.) 20 ὁ ὑπάρχων πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων.

JEREM. xxxviii. 31--.27 (ΧΧχΙ. 30—36).

Vv. 31—34 are cited in Heb. viii. 8—12, q.v. 31. Διαθήσομαι,
in Hebrews συντελέσω, cf. Jer. xli. (xxxiv.) ὃ συντελέσαι (M3)
διαθήκην, and ib. 15. Τῷ οἴκῳ dzs, in Hebrews ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον.
32. Διεθέμην, in Hebrews ἐποίησα : the writer appears to dislike
the repeated alliteration in διατίθεσθαι διαθήκην. Ἔν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπι-
λαβομένου μου, for the more usual τοῦ ἐπιλαβέσθαι pe or ὅτε (7)
ἐπελαβόμην. Ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ev,..Heb. ‘which...they broke’;

᾿ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, reading ΓΟ for ‘N>ya. 33. ἡ διαθήκη μου, Heb.
‘the covenant.’ Διδοὺς δώσω, a Hebraism not represented in fl; in
Hebrews διδούς appears without δώσω, and so AQ in Jer. Eis τὴν
διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, Heb. ‘in their inward parts.’ 34. TY 1° has no
equivalent in the Greek; τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ, Heb. ‘his neighbours’
(cf. Prov. xi. 9. 12, xxiv. 43=28), reminds us that we are dealing

1 The paraphrastic character of the reference appears more distinctly in
the second stanza ἐκ got... Iopand, which blends Mic. v. τῇ, 3%. It will
be observed that cod. A reads ἡγούμενος with Mt.

The Septuagint as a Version. 339

with an Alexandrian version. ᾿Από.. ἕως, Wi. ΡΝ ἀδικίαις...

ἁμαρτιῶν, ΖΕ, ‘ iniquity,’ ‘sin.’ 55:5. 22, In fH 36, 37 precede 35.
35. Φησὶν Κύριος, Heb. ‘thus saith J.’ (at the beg. of the verse).
Ὑψωθῇ, reading 917) for 13°; ταπεινωθῇ, Heb. ‘be searched.’
Οὐκ ἀποδοκιμῶ: dod. is a contracted future (cf. p. 305);
οὐκ is inserted, because the drift of the verse has been mis-
understood (cf. Streane, p. 156f.). Τὸ γένος Ἰσραήλ, Heb. ‘all
the seed of I.’; rece HM again in v. 37. 36. Σελήνην, SA, ‘the

ordinances of the moon’ (but cf. DPM in wv. 35, Heb.). Kpavyny,

reading perhaps 2 or 12 for YA. 37. Κύριος Παντοκράτωρ
=MN2¥ mn, as almost invariably in the Prophets! from Hosea

xii. 5 (6) onwards, with the exception of Isaiah, who transliterates
MINIS (Κύριος σαβαώθ, Isa. i. 9, al.).

DAN. xii. 1—a.

I. Χώραν (LXX.), probably a corruption for ὥραν (cf. Bevan,
p. 48); παρελεύσεται (LXxX.), reading 15)" for Toy’ (ἀναστήσεται,
Th.). Ὃ ἄγγελος (LXX.), a gloss; Th. τ ὁ ἄρχων. Ἐπὶ

Tous viovs (LXX., Th.), .. 23 Sy. Ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα, LXX., ἔσται

καιρός Th.; Th. is again more literal than LXX. OAs οἵα οὐ
γέγονεν (cf. Mt. xxiv. 21, Mc. xiii. 19). Th. repeats the subject
with the view of preventing ambiguity; in the sequel LXX. (as
handed down to us) overlook "13, while Th. adds ἐν τῇ γῇ or ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς. Ὑψωθήσεται LXX.; . Bevansuggestsacorruption for ἐκσωθήσεται
or some other compound of σωθήσεται; but vy. may be a gloss
upon the tamer word which stood in the original. Th. rightly,
σωθήσεται. “Os ἂν evpebn, § §'91937]—overlooked by Th., unless we

accept the reading of AQ, o εὑρεθεὶς [6] γεγραμμένος. 2. Ἔν τῷ
πλάτει τῆς γῆς, LXX.; ἐν γῆς χώματι Th.; Heb. ‘in the ground of
dust’ (but see Bevan, p. 201 f.). rea. καὶ αἰσχύνην, LXX.;

διασπ. is perhaps a gloss on αἰσχ. ; for the word see Deut. XXViii.
25. 3. Οἱ φωστῆρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, LXX., a reminiscence of Gen. i. 14
vray cf. Sap. xiii. 2. Oi κατισχύοντες τοὺς Reyne) LEX. Vibe red

Ta ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ b aigky thie ordinary Biblical pra used
in iii. 36,63; Heb., Th. have ‘the stars.’ 4. ᾿Απομανώσιν (LXX.),
διδαχθῶσιν (Th.). "Both senses have been found in the Fgh. ;
cf. Bevan, 2 loc. Πλησθῇ ἡ yn ἀδικίας, LXX., reading NY) or
NY for mys.

1 Zech. xiii. 2, Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) τὸ are the only exceptions, and in both
cases the MSS. are divided.

22———

340 The Septuagint as a Version.

The student who has gone through these extracts, or
who is able to dispense with help of this kind, is recom-
mended to begin the careful study of some one book or group
of books. For several reasons the Books of Samuel (1—2
Regn.) offer a promising field for work of this kind. They
are on the whole the part of the Old Testament in which the
value of the Septuagint is most manifest and most generally
recognised’, and invaluable help in the study of both the
Hebrew text and the versions is at hand in the commentaries
of Wellhausen, Driver, and H. P. Smith”. But whatever book
may be selected, the method and the aims of the reader will
be the same. He will read the Greek in the first place as a
version, and he will use all the means at his disposal for ascer-
taining the original text which lay behind it. But he will read
it also as a monument of early Hellenistic Greek, and mark
with growing interest its use of words and phrases which,
originating at Alexandria in connexion with the work of trans-
lating the Hebrew Scriptures, eventually became the vehicle
of a fuller revelation in the writings of the Apostolic age.

LITERATURE on the general subject of this chapter: Pear-
sont praefatio paraenetica (Cambridge, 1665; cum notulis E.
Churton, 1865); Hody, De Bibl. textibus originalibus (Oxford,
1705); Thiersch, De Pent. vers. Alexandrina (Erlangen, 1841) ;
Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841); Veber den
Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alex. Hermeneuttk,
1857; Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 73 ff. (Berlin, 1875—8);
Selwyn, art. Septuagint in Smith’s 2). δ. ii. (London, 1863);
Wellhausen, do. in ELacyclopaedia Britannica (London, 1886);
W. R. Smith, Old Testament in Fewish Church (1881, ed. 2,
1892); Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889); Driver,
Notes on the Books of Samuel, \ntr. (Oxford, 1890); Buhl,

1 W. R. Smith, Ὁ. 7. in F. Church, p. 83-

2 If the student prefers to begin with Genesis, he will learn much
as to the LXx. version from Spurrell’s Votes (ed. 2, 1898). For more ad-
vanced study Proverbs will form a suitable subject, and here he may seek
help from Lagarde’s Anmerkungen, and Professor Toy’s recent commen-
tary in the ‘International Critical’ series.

=

The Septuagint as a Version. 341

Kanon τ. Text des O. T. (Leipzig, 1891); Nestle, Margzalien
(Tiibingen, 1893); Streane, Double Text of Feremiah (Cam-
bridge, 1896); the various Introductions to the Old Testament ;
Commentaries on particular books, esp. those of Dillmann and
Spurrell (Genesis), Driver (Deuteronomy), Moore (Judges), Well-
hausen, Driver, and H. P. Smith (Samuel), Toy (Proverbs),
Ryssel (Micah), Cornill (Ezekiel). A complete commentary on
the LXX., or on any of the groups of books which compose it, is
still a destderatum.

On the Semitic style of the LXx. the reader may consult the
Eicaywyn of Adrianus (Migne, ?. G. xcvili.).

CHAPTER VI.

TEXT-DIVISIONS: S7/CH7, CHAPTERS, LECTIONS,
CATENAE.

Tue Greek Old Testament, as it appears in the editions
of the last three centuries, is divided into chapters and verses
which correspond generally with those of the printed Hebrew
Bible.

The traditional text-divisions of the Hebrew and the Greek
Bible are not absolutely identical. Besides the more serious
differences described in Part II. c.i., it not unfrequently happens
that a Greek chapter is longer or shorter than the corresponding
chapter of the Hebrew by a verse or more, and that as a con-

sequence there are two systems of verse-numeration throughout
the succeeding chapter}.

A system of verse-division® is mentioned in the Mishnah
(Meg. 4. 4, Kidd. 30.1). The Massorets noted the number
of verses (B°PiDB) at the end of each book and portion of the
canon ; thus Deuteronomy is stated to consist of 955 pesukim,
and the entire Torah of 5888. Of chapter-divisions in the
Hebrew Bible there are three kinds. (a) There is a pre-
Talmudic division of the canon into sections known as NV,
The parashahs are of two kinds, open and closed, i.e. para-

1 In such cases both systems are represented in the Cambridge edition
of the Lxx. (see O. 7. 22, Greek, i. p. Xiv.).

2 For a full account of the divisions of the Hebrew text see Buhl, Kanon
u. Text, p. 222; Bleek-Wellhausen, p. 574f.; Ryle, Canon of the O. T.,
Ρ. 235. Blau, Massoretic Studies, 111.. in ¥.Q.R., Oct. 1896.

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 343

graphs, which begin a new line, and sub-paragraphs’, which
are preceded only by a space. They are still registered in
the printed Bibles by the 5 (for ΠῚ ΠΒ, ‘open’) and Ὁ (for
MIND, ‘closed’) which occur at intervals throughout the
Torah*. (ὁ) A second system of parashahs breaks up the text
into longer sections for the use of the synagogue. The Law
was divided into 54 Sabbath lessons according to the Baby-
lonian tradition, but into 154 according to the tradition of
Palestine. With few exceptions® the beginning of a lesson
coincides with that of an open or closed parashah ; the coin-
cidence is marked in the Torah by a thrice repeated 5 or ὃ.
The Prophets were similarly divided for synagogue reading,
but the prophetic lections were known as haphtaroth (N05)
and were not, like the liturgical parashahs, distinguished by
signs inserted in the text. (c) Lastly, the printed Hebrew
Bibles are divided into chapters nearly identical with those of
the English versions. This system of capitulation is relatively
modern, and was applied first to the Latin Vulgate in the
thirteenth century, probably by Stephen Langton, Archbishop
of Canterbury (f1228)*. It was adapted to the Hebrew Bible
in R. Isaac Nathan’s Concordance, a work of the fifteenth
century, in which use was also made of the older division into
verses or pesukini.

Of printed editions the Bomberg Hebrew Bible of 1521
was the first to employ the mediaeval system of chapters; the
verse-division found a place in the Latin version of Pagnini
(1528), and the Latin Vulgate of Robert Stephen (1555), and
finally in the Hebrew Bible of Athias (1661). Both chapters

1 A similar system of paragraphing has been adopted in the English
Revised Version, and in the Cambridge Lxx.; see R.V. Preface, and O.7.
in Greek, 1. p. xv.

2 In Baer’s edition they are given throughout the Bible.

3 In the Pentateuch there is only one, the lesson (12) which begins at
Gen. xlvii. 28 (Ryle, p. 236).

4 See Gregory, prolegg. Ὁ. 167 ff.

᾽

344 Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.

and verses were applied to the text of the Septuagint before
the sixteenth century; the capitulation appeared in the Com-
plutensian Polyglott and in the Aldine edition of 1518, and the
verse-numeration in the Frankfort edition of the Aldine text’.

Neither the verses nor the chapters of the existing text-
division occur in MSS. of the Greek Old Testament, except in
relatively later copies*, or in older MSS. where the numerals
have been supplied by a recent hand. But the student who
examines MSS. of the Lxx. or their facsimiles finds himself
confronted by other systems which are both interesting and in
some respects important. To these the present chapter will be
devoted.

1. We begin with the shorter divisions, known as στίχοι,
κῶλα, OF κόμματα.

(a) rixos, Lat. versus, is properly a series of objects —
placed ina row. ‘The word is used in the Lxx. of the stones
in the High Priest’s breastplate (στίχος λίθων, Exod. xxviii.
17 ff.), the pomegranates wrought upon the capitals of the
pillars in the Temple (στίχοι ῥοῶν, 3 Regn. vil. 6), and the rows
of cedar-wood shafts (τριῶν στίχων στύλων κεδρίνων, 26. Q).
When applied to the art of writing, the word signifies a con-
tinuous line of letters or syllables. The extent of an author’s
literary work was measured by the stichi he had written ;
cf. e.g. Diogenes Laertius iv. 24, Κράντωρ κατέλιπεν ὑπομνήματα
εἰς μυριάδας στίχων τρεῖς : Dionysius Halicarn. vi. 1126 πέντε ἢ
ἐξ μυριάδας στίχων τοῦ ἀνδρὸς (sc. Δημοσθένους) καταλελοιπότος.
The ‘line’ might be measured in various ways, as by the limits
imposed upon the scribe by the breadth of his papyrus, or
in the case of poetry by the number of feet in the metre; or
again it might be fixed in each instance by the requirements of

1 It prints the verse-numbers in the margin, and begins every verse with
a capital letter.
2 E.g. H.-P. 38 (xv.), 122 (xv.), where the modern chapters are marked.

Text-divistons: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 345

the sense; or it might depend upon a purely conventional
standard. Evidence has been produced’ to shew that the last
of these methods was adopted in the copying of Greek prose
writings, and that the length of the prose stzchus was deter-
mined by that of the Homeric hexameter, i.e. it was normally
a line of sixteen syllables; in some instances the Iambic
trimeter seems to have been the standard preferred, and the
line consisted of twelve syllables*. The number of letters in
the stichus was on the average 37—-38 in the one case, and
28—29 in the other. Such a system served more than one
useful purpose. Besides facilitating reference, it regulated the
pay of the scribe, and consequently the price of the book. The
number of the lines in a book once determined, it might be
written in any form without affecting the cost®*. The compiler
of the Cheltenham list explains that dishonest scribes at Rome
and elsewhere purposely suppressed or mutilated the sticho-
metry*. Thus the careful entry of the στίχοι in the margins of
ancient books, or the computation at the end of the number of
στίχοι contained in them, was not due to mere custom or
sentiment, but served an important practical end.

(ὁ) Besides this conventional measurement there existed
another system which regulated the length of the line by the
sense. Sense-divisions were commonly known as κῶλα or
κόμματα. The colon, according to Suidas, is a line which
forms a complete clause (ὁ ἀπηρτισμένην ἔννοιαν ἔχων στίχος) ;
the comma is a shorter colon’.

This arrangement was originally used in transcribing poetry,
but before Jerome’s time it had been applied to the great prose

1 By Ch. Graux, Revue de philologie, τι. (1878), p. 97 ff.

2 J. R. Harris, Stichometry, pp. 8, 15-

3 See E. Maunde-Thompson, Gr. and Lat. Palaeography, i. p. 80; Prof.
Sanday, in Studia Biblica, ili. p. 263 f.; J. R. Harris, of. cet. p. 26.

4 “Tndiculum versuum in urbe Roma non ad liquidum, sed et alibi
avariciae causa non habent integrum.”’

5 See Wordsworth-White, Zpc/ogus, p. 733, nn. 1, 2.

346 Texrt-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.

authors ; cf. Hieron. Jraef. ad Jsa.1: “nemo cum prophetas versibus
viderit esse descriptos, metro eos aestimet apud Hebraeos ligari,
et aliquid simile habere de Psalmis vel operibus Salomonis; sed
quod in Demosthene et Tullio solet fieri, ut per cola scribantur
et commata, qui utique prosa et non versibus conscripserunt, nos
quoque, utilitati legentium providentes, interpretationem novam
scribendi genere distinximus”; praef. in Ezech.?: “legite igitur
et hunc iuxta translationem nostram, quoniam per cola scriptus
et commata manifestiorem legentibus sensum tribuit.” Cf. Cas-
siod. de inst. div. litt., praef. Hesychius of Jerusalem (+c. 433)
treated the Greek text of the Dodecapropheton in the same
way *: ἔστι μὲν ἀρχαῖον τοῦτο τοῖς θεοφύροις τὸ σπούδασμα στιχη-
δόν, ὡς τὰ πολλά, πρὸς τὴν τῶν μελετωμένων σαφήνειαν τὰς προφη-
τείας ἐκτίθεσθαι. οὕτω τοιγαροῦν ὄψει μὲν τὸν Δαβὶδ κιθαρίζοντα,
τὸν ἸΠαροιμιαστὴν δὲ τὰς παραβολὰς καὶ τὸν ᾿Εκκλησιαστὴν τὰς προ-
φητείας ἐκθέμενον: οὕτω συγγραφεῖσαν τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ ᾿Ιὼβ βίβλον, οὕτω
μερισθέντα τοῖς στίχοις τὰ τῶν ᾿Ασμάτων ᾷσματα...οὐ μάτην ἐν ταῖς
δώδεκα βίβλοις τῶν προφητῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἠκολούθησα.

Specimens of colometry may be seen in Codd. & B, where
the poetical books are written in co/a of such length that the
scribe has been compelled to limit himself in this part of his

work to two columns instead of dividing his page into three or
four.

Among the lists of the books of the O.T. canon printed
in an earlier chapter of this book (Part 1. c. 1.) there are three
which are accompanied by a stichometry. We will now collect
their measurements and exhibit them in a tabular form.

Stichometry of Stichometry of Stichometry of
Book. Nicephorus. Cod. Clarom. Mommsen’s list.
Genesis 4300 4500 3700
Exodus 2800 3700 3000
Leviticus 2700 2800 2300
Numbers 3530 3650 3000
Deuteronomy 3100 3300 ᾿ 2700
Joshua 2100 2000 1750
udges 2000 17504
Rat ag 250 Hoh’

Migne, /. ZL. xxviii. 771.
Migne, P. Z. xxviii. 938.
Migne, P. G. xxiii. 1339 sq.
Total of first 7 books, ‘ 18000.’

eB ὦ we

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 347

Stichometry of Stichometry of Stichometry of
Book. Nicephorus. Cod. Clarom. Mommsen’s list.

1 Kingdoms 2500 2300

2 Kingdoms ἜΝ ͵ 2000 » 2200

3 Kingdoms me 2600 2550

4 Kingdoms 3 2400 22501

1 Paralip. 2040

2 στον ᾿ 5500 ' 2100

1 Esdras )

2 Esdras ae oe

Psalms 5100 5000 5000

Proverbs 1700 1600

Ecclesiastes 750 600

Song 280 300

Job 1800 1600 1700

Wisdom 1100 1000

Sirach 2800 2500

Esther 350 1000 700

Judith 1700 1300 1100

Tobit 700 1000 goo

Hosea 530

Amos 410

Micah 310

Joel go

Obadiah 70

Jonah 150

Nahum 140

Habakkuk 160

Zephaniah 140

Haggai 10

Zechariah 660

Malachi 200
(Dodecapropheton 3000 [2970] 3800)

Isaiah 3800 3600 3580

Jeremiah 4000 4070 4450

Baruch 700

Ezekiel 4000 3600 3340

Daniel 20007 1600 1350

1 Maccabees 2300 2300

2 Maccabees 7 300 2300 1800

3 Maccabees

4 Maccabees 1000

1 In Mommsen’s list the following totals are also given: Ruth and
1—4 Kingdoms, 9500; Salomonic books, 6500; Major Prophets, 15370;
the whole canon, 69500.

2 Susanna is calculated separately (500).

348 TLert-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.

The figures given above correspond to those in the lists
printed in c. i., which follow the text of Preuschen (Axaz/ecta,
pp. 156f., 142ff., 138f.). Some variants and suggested rectifications
may be seen im Zahn, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, ii., pp. 295 ff.,
143 ff., and Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii., pp. 266 ff.

Many MSS. of the Greek Bible contain more or less
complete stichometries of the several books of the canon.
Either the total number of stichz is registered at the end of the
book, or a record is kept throughout the book by placing a
figure or figures in the margin at the end of each centenary of

lines. Some of our oldest MSS. reproduce in this form the

stichometry of their archetypes; in other cases, a-stichometry
which has been copied into the margin by a second or later
hand. ‘Thus in Cod. B, the margins of 1—4 Regn. and Isaiah
present a nearly complete record' of stichi written prima
manu, and doubtless transcribed from the MSS. to which the.
scribe owed his copy of those books. A marginal register of
stichi is also found in part of Cod. F, beginning with Deutero-
nomy, and in Cod. Q, where it is due to the hand which has
added the Hexaplaric matter. The entries in B and Q agree
generally in Isaiah; in both MSS. the last entry occurs at
Isa. lxv. 19, where the number of s#ciz reaches 3500. But the
famous Chigi MS.-of the Prophets (Cod. 87) counts 3820
stichi in Isaiah*?. This approaches the number given by
Nicephorus, whilst the total number of s#zchz in BQ, 3600, agrees
with the computation of the Claromontane list. The addition
of 200 sticht in Nicephorus and Cod. 87 is due, Ceriani
suggests, to the greater length of the Hexaplaric and Lucianic
texts*. There is a similar disparity between the stichometry of
Nicephorus and the reckoning of Cod. F in Deuteronomy,

+ It is printed by Harris, Stichometry, p. 59 ff.

2 wk, or as Allatius read the MS., FWH (3808); see Cozza, Sacr. bi6/.
vet. fragm. 111. p. Xv.

3 De cod. March., p. 23 f.

Ἄν es Mate Re ee oe ee oe

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 349

where in F the s#chz are 3000', but in Nicephorus 3100. On
the other hand the later uncial K makes the s¢chz of Numbers
to be 3535, which comes very near to the reckoning of
Nicephorus’.

Stichometrical variation 1s doubtless chiefly or largely due
to divergent types of text. But other causes of disparity were
at work. It was easy for scribes to misread the letters which
represented the number of the lines, especially when they were
mechanically copied from an archetype. ‘The older signs may
have been sometimes misunderstood’, or those which were
intelligible may have been confused by careless copying. A
glance at the comparative table on p. 346f. will shew that
several of the larger discrepancies can only be explained in
some such way.

The following stichometry is derived chiefly from Dr E.
Klostermann’s Avxadecta*, giving the result of his researches
among cursive MSS., with some additions supplied by the
Editors of the larger LXx.

Genesis 4308° H.-P. 30, 52,85; Barb. iil. 36; Vat. gr. 746;
Pal. gr. 203; Athos, Pantocr. 24, Laur. y.
112; Athens, Nat. 44

Exodus 3400 H.-P. 30, 52, 85; Barb. ili. 36; Athens,
Nat. 44

Leviticus 2700 H.-P. 309525543185. ,Abarb. 111: -365ARans,
Reg. gr. 2; 2000, Athens, Nat. 44

Numbers 3535° H.-P. 30, 52,85; Barb. ili. 36; Vat. gr. 2122;

Athens, Nat. 44; Paris, Reg. gr. 2
Deuteronomy 3100 H.-P. 30, 52, 54,85; Barb. iii. 36; Vat. gr.
2122; Paris, Reg.gt)2
Joshua 2100 H.-P. 30, 54, 85; Barb. iii. 36; Paris, Reg.
gr. 2

1 The symbol used is $+, which occurs also in B. On this symbol, see
J. Woisin, De Graecorum notis numeralibus, n. 67 (Kiel, 1886).

* The numeration of the s¢zchz in the poetical books ascribed to the
greater uncials in the Cambridge manual Lxx. is derived from Dr Nestle’s
Supplementum* (Leipzig, 1887), and rests on an actual counting of the lines,
and not on statements in the MSS. themselves.

3 Cf. J. R. Harris, Stichometry, p. 31.

4 Seep. oa ff:

5 4400 in H.-P.

4.
6 3530 in H.-P. 54.

σι On

350 TLext-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.

Judges 21001 Barb. ili. 36; 2156, Paris, Reg. gr. 2; Athos,
5 5

Pantocr. 24
Ruth 300 Barb. ili. 36; Paris, Reg. gr. 2

I Kingdoms 2500 Barb. iii. 36 (500, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi)
2 Kingdoms 2600 Barb. iii. 36; 2042, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi
3 Kingdoms 2400 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi

4 Kingdoms 2600 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi

1 Paralip. 2000 Barb. iil. 36

2 Paralip. 3000 Barb. iii. oe 5000, Ven. Marc. gr. xvi

1 Esdras 1300 Barb. ili. 36 .

2 Esdras 2306 Barb. Iii. 33 ShOGN en. Mare (gaia

Psalms 5100 Barb. iii. 36?

Proverbs 1750 H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. ii. 36

Ecclesiastes 750 H.-P: 161, 248; Barb. iil. 36; 782. ἘΠ ΕῚ
253

Song 286 H.-P. 161, 248; Barb. iil. 36; 353, H.-P.
253

Job 2200 (including asterisked lines, 1600 without
them) H.-P. 161(?), 248; Barb. iii. 36

Wisdom 1250, Barb. ii. 36; Ven. gr. 1. 13

Sirach 2650 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. gr. i. 13

Esther 750 Barb. ii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr.
Lg

Judith 1300 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi

Tobit 750 Barb. iii. 36; Ven. Marc. gr. xvi, Ven. gr.
1.213

Hosea 750 H.-P. 86

Joel 210 H.-P. 86

Habakkuk 150 H.-P. 86

Zephaniah 160 H.-P. 36

Haggai 120 H.-P. 86

Zechariah 670 H.-P. 86; 776, H.-P. 231

Malachi 190 .{1.- 86: ‘204; H.-P. 231 *

Isaiah 3700 H.-P. 231; 3820, Barb. iii. 36

Jeremiah 4500 H.-P. 2313; 3800, Barb. iii. 36

Baruch 514 H.-P. 231; 350, Barb. iii. 36

Lamentations? nH@(?) H.-P. 86; ~(?) H.-P. 231; 860, Barb. iii. 36

Ep.ofJeremiah 200 Barb. iii. 36

Ezekiel 4500 H.-P. 231; 4000, Barb. ili. 36

Daniel 1800 H.-P. 231; 1720, Barb. ii. 36

Susanna 24 AP. 208

ΣΡ ΕΘ Mia, Ps 64,

2 Ecclesiastical Canticles, 600, Barb. iii. 36.

3 Total of Minor Prophets variously calculated at 3750, 3600, 3300
(Barb. iii. 36).

4 Possibly a corruption of Tre (see next page).

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 351

2. No complete system of capitulation is found in any
of our existing uncial MSS. of the Greek Old Testament.
Yet even the Vatican MS., which is written continuously except
in the poetical books, bears traces of a system of chapter-
divisions which is older than itself’. It begins with Proverbs,
and from that book onwards chapter-numbers appear in the
margin of the canonical writings, whilst in some instances
there is a double capitulation, as the following table will shew.

Proverbs 61 16 Zephaniah 5
Ecclesiastes 2 7 Haggai 3
Song 40 5 Zechariah 18
Job 33 Malachi 6
Hosea II Isaiah 74
Amos 6 Jeremiah 100 98
Micah 7 Baruch 9
Joel 3 Lamentations 85?
Obadiah I Ep. of Jeremiah 6
Jonah 3 Ezekiel 56
Nahum 3 Daniel far 21
Habakkuk 4

The figures in the left-hand column are prima manu ; those
on the right are in a hand of perhaps the eleventh century
(Ὁ that of ‘Clement the Monk,’ the industrious zxzstaurator who
has left his name on pp. 238 and 264 of the MS.*). In
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song the capitulation of the later
hand differs widely, as will be observed, from the system which
the original scribe reproduced from his archetype. But in
the Prophets the corrector seems simply to have followed the
numbers inscribed in the margin by B*; the latter can be de-
tected here and there under the large coarse characters of the
later hand, and towards the end of Jeremiah and throughout

1 Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c., 1. prolegg., p. xxvii.) points out
that Tertullian recognises a system of chapters in Numbers.

2 In this book the chapter-numbers correspond to the divisions indicated
in the original by the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the recension by
transliteration of the Hebrew alphabetic names.

3 This number includes the Greek additions.

4 See the pref. to Fabiani and Cozza’s facsimile, p. xvii. sqq.

352 Texrt-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.

Daniel the two sets of numbers are distinctly visible. In
Jeremiah the zzstaurator here and there breaks away from the
guidance of the first hand, and the totals are slightly different.
But the difference is probably accidental, and it is certainly
slight ; whereas in the Salomonic books another system is
followed, in which the chapters are three or four times as
long as those of the older capitulation.

Cod. A is broken into paragraphs throughout the prose
books, the beginning of each paragraph being indicated not
only by paragraph-marks, but by the use of a capital letter
which projects into the margin. Besides the paragraphing
certain books—Deuteronomy, Joshua, 3-4 Kingdoms, Isaiah
—retain traces of a capitulation imperfectly copied from
the archetype. In Deuteronomy chapter-marks occur at
cc. i. 1, Ὁ τὸ, δ ‘it, “1,17; 14;' in Joshua they hea
ix. 1 (8) and proceed regularly (x. 1, τό, 29, 31, 34, 36,
38; xi. 1, &c.) down to xix. 17 (An); in 3 Regn. the first
numeral occurs at c. viii. 22 (κβ), and the last at xxi. 17
(v0); 4 Regn. returns only one or two numbers (e.g. 6 stands
opposite to ς. 111. 20). In Isaiah, again, the entries are few and
irregular ; 8 appears atc. ii. 1, and 6 at xxi. 1.

Cod. δὰ seems to have no chapter-marks prima manu, but
in Isaiah they have been added by δὲ“ throughout the book’.

Jeremiah, the Epistle of Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are capitu-
lated in cod. Q, and in the two last-named books the capitula-
tion of Q agrees with that of B. In Jeremiah, where the
agreement is less complete, the chapters in Q do not proceed
beyond c. xxiv., a circumstance which suggests a Hexaplaric
origin’.

Cod. M like cod. B exhibits two systems of capitulation’,

1 Tischendorf, notes to facsimile, p. v.

2 Ceriani, de cod. March., p. 24 ff.
3 See Montfaucon, Azdlioth. Coisliniana, p. 4 sqq.

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 353

one of which is accompanied by brief headings corresponding
in general character to the τίτλοι of the Gospels. The two
capitulations, which are represented with more or less of com-
pleteness in the Hexateuch and in 1-3 Kingdoms}, differ
considerably, as the following table will shew:

Marginal Capitulation accompanied
Capitulation. by titles.
Genesis 106 99
Exodus 84 IIO
Leviticus 54 61
Numbers 53 51
Deuteronomy 657 943

Cod. Sin. I. (x.) is divided into κεφάλαια which number as
follows: Genesis, 150; Exodus, 88; Leviticus, 63; Deutero-
nomy, 69; Joshua, 30; 1 Regn., 66; 2 Regn., 63%.

A list of sections quoted by Dr Klostermann’® from the
cursive MS. cod. Barberini 11, 36 (cent. x1.) exhibits another
widely different scheme® :

Genesis 26 3 Kingdoms_ τό Habakkuk 2
Exodus 8 4 Kingdoms 17 Zephaniah 3
Leviticus I2 Hosea 5 Haggai 3
Numbers 21 Amos 6 Zechariah 13
Deuteronomy 35 Micah 6 Malachi 2
Joshua 8 Joel 4 Isaiah 43
Judges 4 Obadiah 2 Jeremiah 41
I Kingdoms’ 15 Jonah 3 Ezekiel 21
2 Kingdoms [1 Nahum 2 Daniel 9

1 Another Coislin MS, (Coisl. gr. 8) gives the following capitulation
for some of the later histories: 1 Chron. 83, 2 Chron. 86, Tobit 21, Judith
34, I Esdr. 109, 2 Esdr. 80, Esther 55.

* Beginning at c. iv. 41.

3 In Judges there is no capitulation, but the periods of bondage are
distinguished as λογλείὰ a, B, &c., and the exploits of the successive
judges by κριτὴς ἃ, B and so forth.

4 Cf. the numbers in B. M. Add. MS. 35123: Gen., 148; Exod., 84;
Lev., 62; Num., 61; Deut., 69; Josh., 30; Jud., 33.

> Analecta, p. 83 ff.

6 Interesting traces of another old capitulation are to be found in the
ἐκλογὴ τοῦ νόμου printed in Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. i. p. 1. The chapters
here are shorter and therefore more numerous than in any of the lists given

Sie 23

3504 Text-divistons: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.

It is clear that no induction can be drawn from the facts
which are at present within our reach; nor can the various
systems of capitulation be safely classified until some scholar
has collected and tabulated the chapter-divisions of a large
number of MSS. of varying ages and provenance’. It is
probable, however, that the systems, which at present seem to
be nearly as numerous as the capitulated copies of the Lxx.,
will prove to be reducible to a few types reproduced by the
scribes with many variations in detail.

The ‘titles’ deserve separate consideration. In the few
instances where we are able to institute a comparison these
headings seem to be independent. In Numbers, e.g., the
following table shews little correspondence between those in
codd. K, M, even when the chapters coincide.

God: KE. Cod. M.
Num.

vii. 10. Ta δῶρα τῶν ἀρχύντων. Περὶ τῶν δώρων ὧν προσήνεγκαν
οἱ [ι]8Β΄ ἄρχοντες.
see ~ a ΄ > ΄σ an
vill. 5. Περὶ τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ τῶν ᾿Αφορισμὸς τῶν Λευειτῶν εἰς TO

Λευ[ιτῶν]. λειτουργεῖν Κυρίῳ.

xi. 16. Περὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Περὶ ο΄ πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προφη-
ληψομένων" τὸ πνεῦ- τευσάντων.
μα.

above, e.g. Exod. xxii. 1—27 forms part of the 68th chapter and Deut.
xxv. 11 ff. of the g3rd in their several books, while Leviticus apparently
contains 150 chapters and Numbers 140.

1 Paragraphs or sections marked by capitals protruding into the margin
or written in red ink, or (less frequently) distinguished by numbers, occur
perhaps in the majority of cursives; the following list of cursives thus
divided is taken from descriptions of MSS. collated for the use of the Editors
of the larger LXx.: H.-P. x. xi., 16, 17, 18, 29, 38, 46, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59,
64 (double system of capitulation), 68, 70, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79 (in Gen. x7’),
83, 84, 93, 108, 118, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128 (contemporary numbers),
130, 131, 134; B. M. Add. 35123, Lambeth 1214; Paris Ars. 8415; Esc. Q.
1. 13, Σ. i. 16; Munich gr. 454; Grotta Ferrata A. y. 1; Leipzig gr. 361;
Athos, Pantocr. 24 (double system of capitulation, τίτλοι), Vatop. 513,
516; Laur.,,, (both chapters and στίχοι numbered); Athens, nat. gr. 44;
Sinai I, Jerusalem, H. Sep. 2.

2 Tischendorf (Mon. sacr. ined. n. c. i. p. 78) prints AYOMENWN.

Beit Oe ce . a=

Text-divisions :

Cod. K.
Num

=i I ᾿Ααρὼν καὶ Μαρία κατὰ
Μωυσῆν.

SL. 1. ΠΕΡῚ τῶν κατασκεψαμέ-
νων τὴν γῆν.

xiv. 23. Περὶ ΧαΪλεβ] υἱοῦ [Ἰε-
φοννή].

Xlv. 34. Ὅτι ὅσας ἡμέρας κατ-
εσκέψαντο τὴν γῆν,
τοσαῦτα ἔτη ἐποίησαν
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

Χν]. I. Περὶ Kope καὶ Δαθὰν καὶ
᾿Αβιρὼν καὶ Αὐνάν.

ΧΥΠ. I. Περὶ τῆς ῥάβδου ᾿Ααρὼν
τῆς βλαστησάσης.

ΧΧΙ. 21. Περὶ Σηὼν βασιλέως ᾿Α-
μορραίων.

ΧΧΧΙΙ. I. Ἔπαρσις καὶ σταθμοὶ τῶν

υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ.
XXXIll. 3. Περὶ τοῦ νυχθήμερον.
Χχχν.9. Περὶ τῶν πόλεων τῶν
φυγαδευτηρίων.

The following τίτλοι for Exod.

Vienna MS. (Th. gr. 3):

BIW} OL WA

Stichi,

Chapters, Lections, etc. 355

Cod. M.

Περὶ τῆς λέπρας Μαριὰμ ἣν ἔσχεν
ὑβρίσασα τὴν γυναῖκα Μωσῆ.
Περὶ τῶν ἀποσταλέντων κατασκο-

πῆσαι τὴν γῆν.

Περὶ τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως τῆς κατὰ
Μωσῆν παρὰ τοῦ Κόρε συνα-

γωγῆς.

Περὶ τῶν ἀποσταλέντων πρὸς
Σηών, καὶ πῶς ἐνίκησεν αὐτὸν
ὁ Ἰσραήλ.

Πῶς διώδευσαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ.

Περὶ φονέως.

11.-- 111. are taken from a

περὶ τῆς γεννήσεως Μωυσέως.
πρώτη ὀπτασία πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐν τῇ βάτῳ.
περὶ τῆς συναντήσεως μετ᾽ (?) ᾿Λαρών.

εἴσοδος (2) Μωυσέως καὶ ᾿Ααρὼν πρὸς Φαραώ.
περὶ τῶν μαστιγωθέντων γραμματέων.

περὶ τῆς ῥάβδου τῆς στραφείσης εἰς ὄφιν.
πρώτη πληγή; μεταστροφὴ τοῦ ὕδατος εἰς αἷμα.
δευτέρα πληγή, τῶν βατράχων.

τρίτη πληγή, τῶν σκνιπῶν.

Κτλ.

Examples occur of longer headings, which aim at giving a

comprehensive summary or a brief interpretation.

(a) The

preface to Hesychius’s colometrical arrangement of the Minor
Prophets is followed by a complete set of τίτλοι for the Twelve

Prophets and Isaiah?.

The numbers are as follows:

Hosea

1 Migne, P. G. xciii., 1345 sqq. The titles for Isaiah with a collection

23—2

356 Lext-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.

20, Joel το, Amos 17, Obadiah 3, Jonah 4, Micah 13, Nahum
5, Habakkuk 4, Zephaniah 7, Haggai 5, Zechariah 32, Malachi
10, Isaiah 88. The titles are with scarcely an exception
polemical or dogmatic in character, e.g. Hosea: a. Εἰκὼν τῆς
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων συναγωγῆς, ἐξ ἧς ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα τίκτεται,
καὶ λαοῦ τὸ μὲν ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ ἔμεινεν, τὸ δὲ ὕστερον ἐπιστρέφει καὶ
σῴζεται. (ὁ) The Syro-hexaplaric Daniel is divided into ten
chapters, each headed by a full summary of its contents’.

3. One class of sections calls for separate treatment.
In Part 1. εἰν. (p. 168 Ὁ) some account has been given of
MSS. which consist of lessons taken from the Old Testament.
Few of these lectionaries are older than the eleventh century,
and only one goes back to the sixth or seventh. But the
choice of passages for public reading in the services of the
Church must have begun at a much earlier period. The
public reading of the O. T. Scriptures was an institution
inherited by the Church from the Synagogue (Le. iv. τό ff,
Acts xi. 15, xv. 21; cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13); and ‘theré"is evideree
that it was prevalent in Christian communities of the second
and third centuries”. At one great Christian centre provision
was made for the liturgical reading of the Bible on certain
week-days as well as on Sunday. “Αἱ Alexandria (writes
Socrates) on Wednesdays and Fridays the Scriptures are read
and the clergy expound them...and this is at Alexandria a
practice of long standing, for it was on these occasions that
Origen appears to have given most of his instructions in the
Church’.” Turning to Origen’s homilies on the Old Testament

of glosses, apparently by the same author, have been edited by M. Faul-
haber from cod. Vat. Gr. 347 (Hesychit Hieros. interpretatio Isatae, Frei-
burg i. Breisgau, 1899).

1 Bugati, Daniel, p. 1. See also the περιοχαὶ (or ὑποθέσεις) εἰς τοὺς
ψαλμούς ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea, which precede the Psalter in
Cod. A (printed in Migne, ?. G. xxiii. 67 sqq.).

2 See above, p. 168.

3 H.S. v.22 ἐν ᾿Αλεξαν δρείᾳ τῇ τετράδι καὶ τῇ λεγομένῃ παρασκευῇ γραφαί

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 357

we find allusions which shew that they were usually based on
the lesson for the day, and we get light upon the length of the
selected passages.

In Hom. in Num. xv. Origen apologises to his hearers for not
keeping strictly to the lesson for the day: “licet non ordo lectio-
num quae recitantur de illis dicere magis exigat quae lector
explicuit, tamen quoniam nonnulli fratrum deposcunt ea potius
quae de prophetia Balaam scripta sunt ad sermonem disputatio-
nis adduci, non ita ordini lectionum satisfacere aequum credidi
ut desideriis auditorum.” This homily probably belongs to Ori-
gen’s life at Caesarea!, and if so, it is clear that at Caesarea as
well as at Alexandria there was a well-defined order of Church
lessons before the middle of the third century. In another
homily, on the Witch of Endor (zz 1 Sam. hom. 111.), Origen
complains that the O.T. lesson for the day was too long to be
expounded ata single sitting : τὰ ἀναγνωσθέντα πλείονά ἐστι: καὶ
ἐπεὶ χρὴ ἐπιτεμνόμενον εἰπεῖν, δυσὶ περικοπαῖς ἀνεγνώσθη τὰ meee
Ναβάλ.... εἶτα pera τοῦτο ἡ ἱστορία ἡ περὶ τοῦ κεκρύφθαι τὸν Δαυίδ...
εἶτα τὰ ἑξῆς ἡ ἡ ἱστορία ἦν τρίτη, ὅτε κατέφυγεν πρὸς ᾿Αχάρ.. «ἑξῆς τού-
τοις ἦν ἡ ἱστορία ἡ διαβόητος ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου.. «τεσσάρων
οὐσῶν περικοπῶν...ὅτι ποτὲ βούλεται ὁ ἐπίσκοπος προτεινάτω. On
this occasion the O.T. lesson seems to have extended from
I Regn. xxv. I to xxvill. 25, including four περικοπαί or shorter
sections, which, judging from the description, corresponded in
length very nearly to our own chapters?.

The lections to which Origen refers were doubtless those
which were read in the pre-anaphoral portion of the Liturgy in
the hearing of the catechumens as well as the faithful. In the
liturgy of Apost. Const. 11., the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, the
Kingdoms, the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, the Salomonic
books, and the sixteen Prophets, are all mentioned as books
from which the Old Testament lection might be taken; Le.
all the books of the Hebrew Canon, with the exception of the

τε ἀναγινώσκονται, Kai οἱ διδάσκαλοι ταύτας ἑρμηνεύουσι...καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἐν
᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ ἔθος ἀρχαῖον" καὶ yap ᾽᾿Ὡριγένης τὰ πολλὰ ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις
φαίνεται ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδάξας.

DOC. WW. pe τοῦὴν

2 Cf. the τίτλοι in the Coislin MS. (M), where μη΄, μθ', ν΄ are nearly
identical with cc. xxxi., xxxii., xxxill. respectively (Montfaucon, £2d/. Cois/.,
p- 28).

3:8 Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.

Psalter and perhaps the Book of Esther, were employed for
this purpose. The order in Book viii. names only the Law
and the Prophets, but probably the scope is the same. The
‘Prophet,’ ie. the Old Testament lesson, preceded the
‘Apostle’ (the Epistle) in the liturgy of Antioch as known to
St Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century, and it held its
place in the East generally till the seventh’. In the West the
‘prophecy’ was read by the North African Church of St Augus-
tine’s time, and it still holds its ground in the Mozarabic
and Ambrosian rites*. In Egypt, as John Cassian tells us,
the monastic communities read two lessons from Scripture
both at Nocturns and Vespers, and (Saturdays and Sundays
excepted) one of the two lessons was from the Old Testament’;
and the West generally adopted the custom of reading both
the Old and the New Testament in the daily offices.

Before the formation of Lectionaries the liturgical lessons
were marked in the margins of Church Bibles by the words
ἀρχή, τέλος, written opposite to the beginning and end of the
περικοπή΄. Such traces of adaptation to liturgical use are found
even in cod. B, though not prxzma manu’. Whether any of
the larger chapters which appear in certain MSS. (e.g. the
later system in cod. B) are of the nature of lections, must
remain doubtful until the whole subject has received the
fuller treatment which it demands.

The Psalter obviously needed no capitulation, nor was it
ever read by the avayvworys in the lessons for the day. But
special Psalms were recited or sung in the Church, as they had

1 Brightman, Zastern Liturgies, pp. 470, 476, 527, 580. See Chrys.
in Rom. xxiv. 3 (cited above, p. 168).

2 D.C. A., Prophecy, Liturgical (ii. 173° ff.).

3 De inst. coenob. ii. 6.

+ On this word see Suicer, 7hesaurus, ii. 673 sqq. It is used by Justin,
Dial. 78 and Clem. Al., Strom. iii. 38. In Origen (quoted above) the περι-
κοπή is merely a section; at a later time it was used for the ἀνάγνωσμα.

5 Fabiani and Cozza, prolegg., p. xix.

|
|
ἢ

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 359

been in the Synagogue’, and in some early monastic com-
munities arrangements were made for a regular recitation of
the Psalter both in public and private*. The scribe of cod. A
has copied into his MS. a list of Psalms for daily use, in which
three are appointed to be said at each of the two public
services, and one is selected for private use at each hour of
the day and night. It is as follows:

KaNONEC HMEPIN@N YaAM@N. Κ. NYKTEPINO! τῶν YarMON.

nS) A ’ ,ὔ ,ὔ ’ \ ’ὔ , ’ὔ
“OpOpwot τὰ EB ap ppa Avxvexott γΎ ρκθ pK ιβ'
Ωρ[α] α΄ Ψαλμὸς η΄ pla] α΄ ψαλμὸς οδ΄
2) β' 2) κθ ” β' ” κθ'
” i ” a P ” x, ” 2
” ” pa ” ”
ξ΄ ν΄ é ; δ΄
” ” 2) ;
” oe ” ο΄ ” 5: ” μ΄
” ¢ 2) £0 ” ¢ ” va
, 6’ ’ π΄
” 7 ” ν 2) 2 ” Ν
2) ” pla ” ” πίῷ
7: , ’
2) ι : ” PP ” ι , ” Co"
” ta ” βρη 3) ta ” ka
, / , /
” β ” Pk ” 8 ” vs”

The existing order of the Orthodox Eastern Church divides
the Psalter into 20 sections known as καθίσματα, each of which
is broken by the recitation of a G/ovia into three στάσεις. The
larger sections are i.—vlil., ix.—xvi., XVil.—xxIll., xxlv.—xxxL.,
XXX11.—XXXVi., XXXVIl.—xlv., xlvi.—liv., lv.—lxill., lxiv.—lxix.,
Ixx.—Ixxvi., Ixxvii.—Ixxxiv., Ixxxv.—xc., xci.—c., ci.—civ.,
CV.—CViil., CixX.—CXVli., CXVIli., CXIX.—CXXXi., CXXxxll.—cxlil.,
cxlii.—cl. In the later liturgical Greek Psalter the cathismata
are divided by an ornamental band or some other mark of

Ζ
separation, and the s¢asezs by a marginal Ao (δόξα, i.e. the
Doxology, which was repeated at the end of each)’.

1. Seeipxosn.

2 Cf. Cassian, Just. iii. 289. ΄
5. Cf. Const. viii. 37, μετὰ τὸ ῥηθῆναι τὸν ὀρθρινόν.

4 Cf. Const. viii. 34, τὸν ἐπιλυχνικὸν ψαλμόν.

PU, Ch Se Hb Ka Wor Poa Xk

360 Tert-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc.

(1) A few other text-divisions, peculiar to certain contexts
or books, may be specified here. In Isaiah it was not unusual
to mark in the margin the place where each of the books of
Origen’s commentary ended (τύμος a’—AS”, cf. Eus. HE. vi. 36).
Both in Isaiah and in Daniel certain prophetic ὁράσεις were dis-

tinguished. Thus cod. Q™s places Opacic A opposite to Isa. vii. 1,
and Opacic η΄ at c. xvii. I. In Daniel cod. A marks 12 ὁράσεις,
which begin respectively at Sus. 1, Dan. i. 1, ii. I, iii. 1, iii. 98,
v. I, V. 30, Vil. I, vill. I, ix. I, xi. I, Bel 1, and the same method
of division is used in codd. QF. In Lamentations each stanza is
preceded by a representation of the Hebrew letter with which it
begins, e.g. ἀλέφ (dAd, arda'), βήθ, γίμελ (γίμλ), δάλεθ (dered,
δέλτ, δέλθ), and so forth. In the analogous case of Psalm
CXVill. (cxix.), there are no signs of this treatment, except in the
Graeco-Latin Psalters RT.

In the Song a marginal enumeration distinguishes the
speeches of the interlocutors, and some MSS. (eg. & and V)
add marginal notes after the manner of stage-directions, such as
ἡ νύμφη πρὸς τὸν νυμφίον, ταῖς veaviow ἡ νύμφη, ai veavides TO
νυμφίῳϑ.

Small departures from the continuous or slightly paragraphed
writing of the oldest MSS. are found in a few contexts which
lend themselves to division. Thus even in cod. B the blessings
of the tribes in Gen. xlix. 3—27 are separated and numbered
a—1B. A similar treatment but without marginal enumeration is
accorded to Deut. xiv. 12—18 and 1 Paral. 1. 51—54, Eccl. iii.
1—8. The ten words of the Decalogue are numbered in the
margins of codd. BA, but not 2γΖηεα manu; and the systems of
numeration differ to some extent. Thus according to B*, a’ =pro-
logue 8 =i+lly γ =i, O=iv,,¢ =v S Hui, CS ae
θ΄ =1x, .c'=x,..while A’ makes y=iv, =v, «€=vi; the Omer
numbers in A are effaced, or were never appended.

(2) It would be interesting, if sufficient materials were avail-
able, to pursue the subject of text-division with reference to the
daughter-versions of the LXxX. On the stichometry and capitu-
lation of the Latin Bible much information has been brought
together by M. Berger (Azstoire de la Vulgate, p. 307 ff.) and
Wordsworth-White (Epzlogus, p. 733 ff.); for the stichometry see
also Dr Sanday in Studia Biblica, 111. Ὁ. 264f. But it remains

1 The variations in the MSS. are interesting and instructive.

2 Greek numerals are sometimes added in the margin; see above, p. 351.

ὃ In cod. V=23 these become sometimes lengthy τίτλοι, e.g. at v. 7
ἐξῆλθεν μὴ εὑροῦσα τὸν νυμφίον ἡ νύμφη Kal ws ἐν νυκτὶ εὑρεθεῖσα ἀπὸ τῶν
φυλακῶν τῆς πόλεως τραυματίζεται, καὶ αἴρουσιν αὐτῆς τὸ θέριστρον οἱ τειχο-
φυλακοῦντες.

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 361

doubtful whether these divisions of the Latin Bible belonged
originally to Jerome’s version or were transferred to it from the
Old Latin!; or, supposing the latter view to be correct, whether
they came from the MSS. of the Lxx. which were used by the
early African or Italian translators. In referring to the N.T.
Tertullian speaks of cafztula not seldom (ad uxor. 11. 2, de
monog. \1, ade virg. vel. 4, de praescr. 5, adv. Prax. 20); but it
is not clear that he uses the word to connote definitely marked
sections.

On the capitulation of the Coptic versions the student will
find something in Wilkins, Peztat. praef., ad fin., and Lagarde,
Orientalia, p. 125 ff.; on the Egyptian lectionary, he may con-
sult the list of authorities collected by Brightman, Azczent
Liturgies, p.\xix. For the Ethiopic version, cf. Dillmann’s E7zhzo-
pic Pentateuch, 1. ii., pp. 163 f., 173. The stichometry of the
Syro-Hexaplaric is discussed by Lagarde, M7ttheilungen, iv.
(1891), p. 205 f. Α list of Church lessons, taken from the Pales-
tinian-Syriac lectionary recently discovered by Mrs Lewis and
Mrs Gibson, is given by Nestle in Studia Sinattica, vi. p.
xxix. ff.

4. In connexion with the subject of text-division it will be
convenient to mention the expositions which accompany and
often break up the text in MSS. of the Greek Bible. The
student will have observed that many of the codices enume-
rated in Part 1. c. v. (pp. 148—168) contain commentaries,
either original (comm.), or compiled (cat.). Of the Greek
commentators something will be said when we come to con-
sider the use of the Lxx. by the Greek fathers ; in this place
we will limit ourselves to the relatively late compilations which
are based on the exegetical works of earlier writers”.

Such expositions were formerly described as ἐκλογαί or
παραγραφαί, OF as ἐπιτομαὶ ἑρμηνειῶν, ΟΥ̓ ἐξηγήσεις ἐρανισθεῖσαι
ἀπὸ διαφόρων πατέρων, Or συνόψεις σχολικαὶ ἐκ διαφόρων ὗπο-
μνημάτων συλλεχθεῖσαι, or by some similar periphrasis. The
use of the technical term cafena (cepa) is of comparatively
modern date. Catena aurea is a secondary title of the great

1 Cf. Sanday, of..cé¢., p. 272.

2 Ch. Q. R. i. 99, Ρ- 34: ‘*the process of drawing up Catenae goes on
from the fifth to the fourteenth or fifteenth century.”

362 Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.

compendium of comments on the Four Gospels brought
together by Thomas Aquinas, and a Greek MS. Psalter of the
16th century (Vat. Gr. 2240) adopts the phrase, translating it
by χρυσῆ ἅλυσις. Σειρά is used in this sense by the editor of
the Greek catena of Nicephorus, which bears the title Sepa
ἑνὸς καὶ πεντήκοντα ὑπομνηματιστῶν εἰς τὴν ᾿Οκτάτευχον Kal τὰ
τῶν Βασιλειῶν. The metaphor so happily expresses the
principle on which such commentaries are constructed, that
books of this description are now universally known as catenae
or σειραί. They are ‘chains’ in which each link is supplied
by some ancient author, scraps of exegesis threaded together
by the ingenuity or industry of a collector who usually elects
to be anonymous.

The catenists drew their materials from all sources within
their reach. They laid under contribution Jewish writers such
as Philo and Josephus, heretics like Basileides, Valentinus, and
Marcion, suspects like Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Apol-
linarius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as the accepted
teachers and Saints of the Catholic Church. Their range
extended from the first century to the fifth or sixth, and they
had access to a number of writers whose works have since
disappeared. Hence their value in the eyes of patristic
scholars and editors. But they are not without importance for
the purposes of the biblical student. The text embedded in the
commentary may be late’, but the commentary itself often pre-
serves the witness of early writers to an old and valuable type.

The catena is usually written in the broad margins which
surround the text, or it embodies the text, which in that case is
usually distinguished from it by being written in uncials or
in coloured ink, or enclosed within marks of quotation. The
names of the authors who have been pressed into the service
of the catenist are commonly inserted in the margin at the

1 See, however, the facts collected in Ch. Q. R. i. 99, p- 468.

Text-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 363

place where their contributions begin: thus xpycloctémoy],
wplirénoyc], eYc[eBioy], @eod[apoy] ἀντ[ιοχέοο],. rpxrlopfoy],
Kyp[fAAoy]. Ifa second passage from the same author occurs
in the same context it is introduced as τοῦ aytof; an anony-
mous writer is AAAoc. Unfortunately in the copying of catenae
such attributions have often been omitted or misplaced, or even
erroneously inserted, and as to this particular the student
must be on his guard against a too unsuspecting acquiescence
in the witness of his MS. Nor can he place implicit con-
fidence in the verbal accuracy of the excerpts. The catenists
evidently regarded themselves as free, while retaining the
substance, to abbreviate and otherwise modify the language
of their authors.

The following is a list of the chief Greek catenae of the Old
Testament which have appeared in type. Octateuch, Historical
books: the Catena of Nicephorus, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1772—3;3
Psalms: B. Corderii exfosttio Graecorum patrum, 3 vols., Ant-
werp, 1643; Proverbs: Commentary of Procopius first printed
by Mai, andin Migne, P. G. lxxxvii.; Sozg: Commentary ascribed
to Eusebius and Polychronius (Meursius, Leyden, 1617); od:
Catena of Nicetas of Serrae (P. Junius, 1.6. Patrick Young,
London, 1636); /sazah: Commentary of Procopius (J. Curterius,
Paris, 1580); eremzah, with Lamentations and Baruch: Catena
published by M. Ghisler, 3 vols., Leyden, 1623; Danze/: Catena
published by A. Mai in Script. vet. nov. coll, 1. On these see

Ch. Q. R. 1. 99, pp. 36—42.

The nineteenth century has added little to our collection
of printed Greek catenae on the Old Testament, and the
earlier editions do not always adequately represent the witness
of the best MSS. Meanwhile a great store of MS. catenae
awaits the examination of Biblical scholars. Some of these
are at Athos, Athens, Smyrna and Jerusalem, but there is an
abundant supply in libraries more accessible to Western
students, at St Petersburg, Rome, Paris, and London. Perhaps
no corner of the field of Biblical and patristic research offers so
much virgin soil, with so good a prospect of securing useful if
not brilliant results.

364 Tert-divisions: Stichi, Chapters, Lectzons, etc.

The following Lxx. MSS. amongst others contain catenae on
one or more of the books which form their text: H.-P. 14, 17, 24,
25, 31, 33, 52, 57) 73) 779 78, 79, 83, 87, 90, 91, 97, 98, 99, 109, 112,
128, 135, 147, 181, 209, 238, 240, 243, 264, 272, 292, 302, 309;
London B.M. Add. 35123, Lambeth 1214; Paris, Coisl. gr. 5, 7,
Reg. gr. 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 161; Zurich c. 11; Basle gr. iv.
56, vi.8; Esc. 3.1.16; Leyden, 13; Munich gr. 82; Athos Vatop.
15, Ivér.15; Athens, nat. 43; Constantinople 224; Smyrna, Ev.
sch. 1; Patmos, 216,217; Sinai2; Jerusalem H. Sep. 3. Scholia
are to be found in H.-P. 14, 16, 38, 52, 56, 64, 70, 77, 79, 93, 128,
I 30, 131, 135, 159, 256, 310; Paris Ars. 8415, Coisl. gr. 184.

On the Paris O.T. catenae see H. Lietzmann, Cavenen,
p- 37 ff. Some of the Vatican catenae are handled by Pitra,
analecta sacra τι, Klostermann, amalecta, passim; a full and
valuable account of Roman MS. catenae on the Prophets is
given by Faulhaber (dze Propheten-Catenen). For lists of
the catenae in the great libraries of Europe and the East, the
student must consult the published catalogues, e.g. Montfaucon,
Omont (Paris), Stephenson (Vatican), Lambeccius (Vienna),
Lambros (Athos), Papadopulos (Jerusalem). The more im-
portant MSS. are enumerated by Harnack-Preuschen, and
Heinrici, and in the older work of Fabricius-Harles.

5. Besides catenae and detached scholia the margins of
Lxx. MSS. frequently contain notes of various kinds, written
oftentimes in perplexing abbreviations. Lists of abbreviations
are given by the principal palaeographical authorities, such as
Montfaucon’s Palacographia Graeca, Gardthausen’s Griechische
Paliographie, and Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s Handbook of
Greek and Latin Palaeography ; but the subject can only be
mastered by working upon the MSS. themselves or their
facsimiles. It may be useful, however, to print here a few of
the abbreviated notes and symbols which occur in the affa-
vatus of the Cambridge manual Lxx., or are of frequent
occurrence in the principal codices.

ἃ -- Ακύλας. «ς΄, cy’ = ξύμμαχος. θ΄, θε΄ = Θεοδοτίων.
OY K π' εβρ΄ -- οὐ κεῖται παρ᾽ ᾿Εβραίοις. οἱ wB oy K π΄ εβρ΄

-- οἵ ὠβελισμένοι (στίχοι) οὐ κεῖνται παρ᾽ Ἔ βραίοις. ομῦ τοιο οἵ
-- ὁμοίως τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα. οἱ Γ-Ξ-οἱ τρεῖς, 1.6. Aquila, Sym-

Pie. x a ae _—

Text-divisions : Stichi, Chapters, Lections, etc. 365

machus, Theodotion. wt -- πάντες. A= Λουκιανός (Field,
ο

LFexapla, τ. \xxxv.). 01 ἃ -Ξ οἱ λοιποί. Mo™ = μόνος. ᾧ = ὡραῖον,
ο
ᾧ or ᾧ -- Ὠριγένης. For tm see above, p. 39 ἢ
ΘΒ = σημείωσαι, σημειωτέον, σημεῖον. ΓΡ -- γράψον or γράφεται.

apX = ἀρχή. τε΄-- τέλος. ct’ = στίχος. κε΄-- κεφάλαιον. ka? = κά.

A
θισμα. an® = ἀνάγνωσμα. = διώρθωται (1.6. ‘corrected thus
far’), a mark inserted by the διορθωτής usually at the end of a
book. For further particulars see Field, of. ci?¢., Ὁ. xciv. sqq.

LITERATURE.
Stichometry, colometry, &c.

Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, art. Verse; Herzog-
Plitt, art. Stéchometrie; Gregory, i. p. 112 f.; Scrivener-Miller,
1.) p. 52 ff.; Gardthausen, Palwographie, p. 127 ff.; E. M. Thomp-
son, Handbook, p. 78 ff.; Zahn, Gesch. d. Kanons, ii. p. 295 ff. ;
Sanday in Studia Brblica, iui. p. 261 ff.; J. R. Harris, Stichomeiry,
passim; Wordsworth-White, Zfzlogus, p. 733 ff. (Oxford, 1898).

Capitulation.

weuurer, [ft u..79f.; Buhl, Kanon w, Text a. AL Top. 222;
Ryle, Canon of the V.T., p. 235; Morinus, Exerc. Bzbl. xvii. 3;
Dathius, De ordine pericoparum (opusce. iv.); Zacagni, Collectanea,
praef., pp. Ixvil., Ixxxi.; Montfaucon, 4zblzoth. Cots?., p. 1 ff. ;
the Benedictine Prolegomena in div. S. Hieron. biblioth. iv.
(reprinted in Migne, P. Z. xxviii. τοῦ sqq.); Suicer, Zhes. éccl.
5ινν. κεφάλαιον, περικοπή ; Herzog-Plitt, art. Perikopen : i ἀρ
ΠΡ 150. Scrivener-Muller, 1: p: 66; Thomasii off.
Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, Pp: 323 ff.

Lections.

Suicer, Zhes. eccl. S.vv. ἀνάγνωσμα, ἀνάγνωσις, γραφή; Brill, De
lectionariis or. et occ. eccl. (Helmstadt, 1703); Neale, AWzsz. of the
Hf. Eastern Church, i. p. 369; Herzog-Plitt, artt. Lectionen,
Pertkopen; D.C.A., art. Lections; Burgon, Last twelve verses of
St Mark, p. 191 ff. ; 58 Ranke, Das kirchl. Perikopen-system der
rom. Liturvie (Berlin, 1847).

Catenae.

T. Ittig, De d¢bliothecis et catenis patrum (Leipzig, 1707);
J.C. Wolf, De catents Gr. patrum (Wittenberg, 1742); Fabricius-

366 Tert-divistons: Stichi, Chapters, Lections, ete.

Harles, viii. p. 637 ff.; J. G. Dowling, Wotitia scriptorum 55.
patrum (Oxford, 1839); Walch-Danz, Bzblioth. patristica (Jena,
πὰς p. 247 B Harnack-Preuschen, Gesch. a. altchr. Litteratur,

835 ff.; G. Heinrici, in Hauck, keal-Encyklop. ii., art.
penne P. Batiffol, in Vigouroux’ D. &. ii., p. 482 ff, art.
Chaines ’Bibliques : Lietzmann, Catenen (Freiburg 1. By 1897);
M. Faulhaber, Dze Propheten-Catenen nach romischen Hana-
schriften, in Biblische Studien, iv. 2, 3 (Freiburg i. Breisgau,
1899). The two last-named works are indispensable to students
who desire to prosecute research in this field. The whole subject
is summarised with admirable clearness and precision in the
Church Quarterly Review for Apr. 1900, pp. 29—48.

Poke Ei.

TALPERARY USE, VALCE;, AND TEXTUAL. CONDITION
OF THE GREEK OLD TESTAMENT.

KR Bare ΟΝ

he Pb ieee ν

δ ντε , ᾿ YT oe! wo ivew ‘ef Ae a tt

wid? © ' ΤᾺ: Ween Rar Bat hg ΗΝ,
' ᾿ ‘ nz} ive a eee εὐ 92.) A hi
Po te. Meus ἣν ee ee
wh, ἢ . 7 ae γι ; ΐ fr.
yt ΠΕ Pe i ΒΕ. ; Oth I

t=
‘A
i Ἢ

͵ ᾿ as
iz λα δ SSRN Uk “AGAGY Ace

ἶ ; ΠΡ he “oa
᾿ ; Γ᾿ ΔΝ i,t .% f, ᾿,᾿ τ ᾿ ‘3 a a na ἣ, 4. ων ‘ :' Ὶ AQ .ς ᾿

ef

PAL, hbk

CHAPTER...

LITERARY USE OF THE LXX. BY NON-CHRISTIAN
HELLENISTS.

1. A HAPpPy accident has preserved fragments of the lost
literature produced by the Hellenised Jews of Alexandria
between the inception of the Alexandrian Version and the
Christian era. The Greek historiographer, Alexander Corne-
lius—better known as Polyhistor (ὁ πολυΐστωρ), from his
encyclopaedic learning—wrote a treatise On the Jews which
contained extracts from Jewish and Samaritan Hellenistic
writings’. Of these a few were copied from Polyhistor’s book
by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, in whose
pages they may still be read. They consist of fragments of
the historians Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, and Aristeas,
the poets Philo, Theodotus, and Ezekiel, the philosopher
Aristobulus, and Cleodemus or Malchas. ‘There is reason to
believe that Demetrius flourished c. B.c. 200; for the other
writers the date of Polyhistor (c. B.c. 50) supplies a ¢erminus
ad quem, if we may assume” that he wrote the work attributed
to him by Clement and Eusebius.

1 Cf. Joseph., azz. i. 15, Clem. Al. strom. i. 130, Eus. pr. ev. ix. τῇ.
2 See Schiirer®, iii. p. 347 f.

ae 24

370 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.

The following references will enable the student to find the
fragments: (1) Demetrius: Clem. Al. strom. i. 141. Eus. f7. ev.
ix. 19(?), 21, 29. (2) Eupolemus: Clem. Al. stvom. 1.141. Eus.
pr. ev. ix. 17, 26 (=Clem. Al. strom. i. 153), 30—34, 39. (3) Arta-
panus: Eus. 27. ev. ix. 18, 23,27. (4) Aristeas: Eus. 27. ev. 1x.
25. (5) Philo the poet: Eus. g7. ev. ix. 20, 24, 37 (cf. Clem. Al
strom. τ. 154). (6) Theodotus: Eus. 77. ev. ix. 22. (7) Ezekiel
the poet: Eus. 27. ev. ix. 28 (=Clem. Al. stvom. i. 155), 29.
(8) Aristobulus: Eus. ~~ ev. vill. 10; ix. 6 (=Clem. Al. strom. 1.
22); xiii. 12. (0) Cleodemus or Malchas: Eus. 27: ev. 1x. 20.

Several of these fragments bear traces of a knowledge and
use of the Greek Bible, and this evidence is not the less
convincing because, with one exception, the purpose of the
writers has kept them from actual quotation. They wished to
represent their national history in a form more acceptable
to their pagan neighbours; but while avoiding the uncouth
phraseology of the Greek Bible they frequently betray its
influence. A few extracts will make this plain.

Demetrius: (a) τὸν θεὸν τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ προστάξαι ᾿Ιςδὰκ τὸν
γἱὸν ὁλοκἀρττῶοδι αὐτῷ: τὸν δὲ ἀναγαγόντα τὸν παῖδα ἐπὶ τὸ
ὅρος πυρὰν νῆσαι καὶ ἐπιθεῖνδι τὸν Ἰσαάκ’ οφάζειν δὲ μέλλοντα
κωλυθῆναι ὑπὸ ἀγγέλου κριὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν κἄρττωοιν παρα-
στήσαντος. (ὁ) ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἐλθεῖν εἰς Xappaea, ἔνθεν παρα-
γενέσθαι εἰς ᾿Εφράθα, AN εἶνδι Βηθλέεμ... «καὶ τελευτῆσαι Ῥαχὴλ
TEKOYCAN TOV Βενιαμίν 5. (c) φησὶ γὰρ τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ παῖδας πρὸς
ANATOAAC ἐπὶ κατοικίαν πέμψαι: διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ᾿Αὰἀρὼν Kal
Λλὰριὰλι. εἰπεῖν ἐν ᾿Αρηρὼθ Μωσῆν Αἰθιοπίλὰ γῆμαι γυνὰϊκδ
(Z) μὴ ἔχοντα δὲ yAwp ἐκεῖ γλυκὺ ἀλλὰ πικρόν; τοῦ θεοῦ
εἰπόντος, ZYAON τι ἐμβὰλεῖν εἰς τὴν πηγήν, καὶ γενέσθαι γλυκὺ
τὸ ὕλωρ. ἐκεῖθεν δὲ εἰς ᾿Ελεὶλλ ἐλθεῖν, καὶ εὑρεῖν ἐκεῖ AWAEKA
μὲν TTHPAC ὑλάτων, EBAOMHKONTA δὲ CTEAEXH φοινίκων Ὁ (For
other coincidences, see above, p. 18.)

Eupolemus: εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸο ὃς τὸν OYPANON kal τὴν
Γῆν ἔκτισεν, ὃς εἵλετο ἄνθρωπον χρηστὸν ἐκ χρηστοῦ ἀνδρός... καὶ
ἀρχιτέκτονά COI ATTECTAAKA ἄνθρωπον Τύριον ἐκ μητρὸς ἐτουξοον
ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Aav®.

Cf. Gen. xxii. 1 ff.

Cf. Gen. xxxv. 16.

Cf. Gen. xxv. 6; Num. xi. 34—xil. I.
Cf. Exod. xv. 23 ff.

Cf. 2 Chron. i..12

a fF ON ν»-

Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 371

Aristeas: τὸν “Hoad γήμαντα Βασσάραν ἐν ᾿Ελὼκ γεννῆσαι
Ἰώβ: κατοικεῖν δὲ τοῦτον ἐν TH AYCITIAI χώρᾳ ἐπὶ τοῖο ὁρίοις
TAC "[Aoymaiac Kal ᾿Αρδβίδο" γενέσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν AfKAION καὶ
πολύκτηνον, κτήσασθαι γὰρ αὐτὸν πρόβὰτὰ μὲν ἑπτὰκιοχίλιὰ,
κἀλλήλογε δὲ TpicyiAfac, ΖεΥΓΗ βοῶν πεντὰκόοιὰ, ONOYC
OHAEIAC NOMAAAC ττεντὰκοοίδο᾽.

Ezekiel (in his tragedy ἡ ᾿Εξαγωγή):

Μαριὰμ δ᾽ ἀδελφή μου κατώπτευεν πέλας"
κἄπειτα θυγάτηρ βασιλέως ABPaic ὁμοῦ
κατῆλθε λουτροῖς, χρῶτα φαιδρῦναι νέον.
᾿Ιλοζοὰ δ᾽ εὐθὺς καὶ λαβοῦσ᾽ ἀνείλετο,
ἔγνω δ᾽ Ἑβραῖον ὄντα" καὶ λέγει τάδε
Μαριὰμ ἀδελφὴ προσδραμοῦσα βασιλίδι.-
Θέλειο τροφόν σοι παιδὶ τῷδ᾽ εὔρω ταχὺ
ἐκ τῶν ᾿Εβρδίων; 7 δ᾽ ἐπέσπευσεν κόρην"
μολοῦσα δ᾽ εἶπε μητρί, καὶ παρῆν ταχὺ
αὐτή τε μήτηρ κἄλαβέν μ᾽ ἐς ἀγκάλας.
εἶπεν δὲ θυγάτηρ βασιλέως Τοῦτον, γύναι,
τρόφεγε, κἀγὼ MICOON ἀπολώοσω σέθεν.
* * * * *

οὐκ εὔλογος πέφυκα, γλῶσσα δ᾽ ἐστί μου
δύσφραστος, ἰοχνόφωνοο; ὥστε μὴ λόγους
ἐμοὺς γενέσθαι βασιλέως ἐναντίον “.
Aristobulus: (a) ἐν χειρὶ KPATAIA ἐξήγαγεν ὁ θεός ce ἐξ
Αἰγύπτου". (ὁ) ἰΔοΥ χεὶρ Kypioy éctai* ἐν ΤΟΙ͂Ο κτήνεοί
COY kal ἐν πᾶσι τοῖος ἐν τοῖο TIEAfOIC BANATOC MELac.

2. Besides these fragments, some complete books have
survived the wreck of the pre-Christian literature of the Jewish
colony at Alexandria. They are included in the Alexandrian
Greek Bible, but may be employed as separate witnesses of
the literary use of the canonical translations. And the evidence
supplied by them is abundant. Thus the writer of Wisdom
knows and uses not only Exodus (Sap. xvi. 22 = Exod. ix. 24,

1 Cf. Job xlii. 17 Ὁ, c, i. 1 ff. Pseudo-Aristeas ad Philocratem makes
abundant use of the Greek Pentateuch, as the reader may see by referring
to the Appendix, where LXx. words and phrases are indicated by the use
of small uncials.

2 Cf. Exod. ii. 4 ff.; iv. το, where οὐκ εὔλογος is read by cod. F.

3 Exod. xiii. 9.

4 Exod. ix. 3. Ἔσται A, ἐπέσται B. Kal ἐν πᾶσι, which is wanting in
our MSS., may be due to a slip of memory, or it is a short way of
expressing ‘what follows in the text (ἔν τε τοῖς ἵπποις κτλ.).

24—2

372 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.

and perhaps also Sap. xii. ὃ = Exod. xxiii. 28) and Deuteronomy
(Sap. vi. 7= Deut. i. 17, Sap. xi. 4= Deut. vill. 15), but Isaiah
(Sap. li. 12=Isa. ui. 10, Sap. xv. 10=Isa. xliv. 20). The
translator of Sirach not only recognises the existence of the
Greek Pentateuch and Prophets and ‘the other books,’ but
shews everywhere the influence of the Greek phraseology of
the Lxx.’ In 2 Maccabees vil. 6 we have a verbatim quota-
tion from Deut. xxxii. 36, and in 4 Maccabees xviil. 14 ff. a
catena of references to the Greek Bible, including direct cita-
tions of Isa. xlili. 2, Ps. xxxiil. 19, Prov. ii. 18, Ezek. xxxvil.
4, Deut. xxxli. 39, xxx. 20—all from the Lxx. The picture
which the last-named passage draws of a Jewish father read-
ing and teaching his children out of the Greek Bible (cf.
2 Tim. iil. 15) is a suggestive one, but the book, it must
be remembered, is of uncertain date, possibly as late as the
time of Josephus, to whom it was at one time ascribed’*.

3. The Jewish portions of the Sibyllines, notwithstanding
the epic form in which they are cast, exhibit clear signs of the
influence of the Lxx. Thus in Sibyll. 11. 310 ἐξέχεας is a
reminiscence of Ps. Ixxvill. 3, LXX.; 726. 606 χειροποίητα... .ἐν
σχισμαῖς πετρῶν κατακρύψαντες is borrowed from Isa. 11. 19 ff.,
Lxx.; 70. 708 ff. is probably modelled on the Greek of Isa. x1.
6 ff.

4. There remains one Alexandrian Jewish writer, the
greatest of the succession, whose extant works happily are
numerous and throw abundant light on the literary use of
the Septuagint at Alexandria.

Philo’s literary life probably coincided as nearly as possible
with the first forty or five and forty years of the first century

1 See Edersheim in Wace’s Afocr. ii. p. 26.

2 Cf. A. Deissmann in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 150: “als
Abfassungszeit wird man den Zeitraum von Pompejus bis Vespasian
annehmen diirfen.”

Ose of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 373

A.D.; in 40 A.D. he could speak of himself as already an old
man’, but his literary activity was not yet at an end, as ap-
pears from his account of the embassy to Rome in that year.
Thus the evidence of his writings belongs to a period just
antecedent to the rise of the earliest Christian literature, and
his numerous quotations enable us to form a fair idea of the
condition of the text of the Lxx. in Alexandrian copies shortly
before it passed into the hands of the Church.

The following list of Philo’s works may be useful for refer-
ence. Cohn and Wendland’s order is followed so far as their
edition has been published.

A. Exegetical works. De opificto mundi (Gen. 1... Legum
allegoriae (ii. I—iii. 19). De Cherubin etc. (111. 24—I1v. 1). De
sacrijicits Abelis et Caini (iv. 2f.). Quod deterius potiort
instdiart soleat (iv. 3—15). De posteritate Caini (iv. 16—26).
De gigantibus (vi. 1—4). Quod Deus sit tmmutabtlts (vi. 4—12).
De agricultura (ix. 20). De plantatione Noe (ix. 20). De
ebrietate (ix. 21—23). De sobrietate (ix. 24). De confustone
linguarum (xi. I—9). De migratione Abrahami (xii. 1—6).
Quis rerum divinarum heres (xv.). De congressu quaerendae
eruditionis gratia (xvi. 1—6). De fuga et inventione (xvi. 6—
14). De mutatione nominum (xvil. I—22). De somnits 1., 11].
(xxviii. 12 ff., xxxi. I1I—13, xxxvil., xl., xli.). De Abrahamo. De
Fosepho. De vita Moysis. De decalogo. De ctrcumctsione.
De monarchia. De praemits sacerdotum. De victimis. De
victimas offerentibus. De mercede meretricts. De spectalibus
legibus (3rd—i1oth commandments of the Decalogue). De
zudice. De tustitia. De creatione principum. De tribus vir-
tutibus. De poenttentia. De praemits et poents. De execra-
tionibus. Quaestiones et solutiones (1) tu Genestm, (2) in
Exodum*. 8B. Philosophical works. De xobilitate. Quod
omnis probus liber stt. De vita contemplativa. De tncorruptt-
bilitate mundt. De providentia. De ratione animalium. De
mundo. C. Political’ works. Jz Flaccum. De legatione ad
Cazum.

In his exegetical writings Philo quotes the Lxx. directly,
announcing each citation by a formula such as φησί, εἶπεν,

1 Leg. ad Cai. i. 28.
2 On these see J. R. Harris, Fragments of Philo, p. τι ff., and F. C.
Conybeare, Expositor, IV. iv. p. 456 ff.

374 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellentsts.

λέγει, λέγεται, γέγραπται, or some more elaborate phrase’. In
this way he reproduces a considerable portion of the Greek
text of the Pentateuch, as well as a few passages from Joshua,
Judges, 1, 3 Kingdoms, 1 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and some of the minor Prophets. His Greek is, on
the whole, clearly that of the Alexandrian version, which he
regarded as the work of men divinely qualified for their task’.
Nevertheless his quotations often differ from the Greek of the
LXxX., as it is found in our extant MSS., or in the oldest and
best of them.

5. The task of comparing Philo’s quotations with the
Lxx. has been undertaken in Germany by C. F. Hornemann
and C. Siegfried, and in England more recently by Professor
Ryle; and from these investigations the student may derive
a general acquaintance with the subject, although even the
latest of them will need revision when the critical edition of
Philo’s works, now in course of being published, has reached
completion. The following specimens will shew the extent
to which Philo departs from the Lxx.

Gen. ll. 7 εἰς ψυχὴν ζωῆς (LXx. cis Ψψ. ζῶσαν)". iv. 21 οὗτος ἐστὶ
πατὴρ ὁ καταδείξας ψαλτήριον καὶ. κιθάραν (LXX., ἣν 6 k.). Vl. 14
νοσσιὰς νοσσιὰς ποιήσεις τὴν κιβωτόν (νοσσιάς semel LXX.).- kas
mais οἰκέτης δοῦλος δούλων ἔσται (LXX. 7. οἰκέτης ἔσται, and so Philo,
11. 225. 20). xv. 18 €ws τοῦ ποταμοῦ, Tov μεγάλου ποταμοῦ Ev@parou
(LXX. Om. ποταμοῦ 2°)*, xvill. 12 οὔπω μοι γέγονε TO εὐδαιμονεῖν
ἕως τοῦ viv (LXX. omit τὸ εὐδ. and so Philo once, iii. 184. 28).
Exod. iv. 10 οὐκ εἰμὶ εὔλογος (so Philo, apparently®: LXxX. οὐκ
ἱκανός εἰμι). XV. 17 ἔδρασμα eis καθέδραν σου κατειργάσω (LXX.
εἰς ἕτοιμον κατοικητήριόν σου ὃ κατ.). XX. 23 μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ (LXX., ὑμῖν
αὐτοῖς). XXlll. 2 μετὰ πολλῶν (LXX., μετὰ πλειόνων). Lev. xix.
23 ξύλον βρώσεως (LXX., ξ. βρώσιμον, and so Philo ii. 152. 8).
Deut. viii. 18 ἀλλὰ μνείᾳ ee ΕΙΣ (LXX. καὶ pvno6.). xxi. 16 KAn-
podorn (LXX., κατακληρονομῇ B, κατακληροδοτῇ AF, and these
readings are found as variants in Phil. i. 209. 4).

1 Cf. Ryle, PAzlo, p. xiv. f. 2 Cf. vet. Moys. 6, 7.

3 On this see Nestle, Zur neuen Philo-Ausgabe in Philologus, 1900,
p- 259. Dr Nestle informs me that cod. 75 often agrees with Philo.

4 See Nestle, -of. cz¢., p. 270. 5 See above, p. 371.

|

Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 375

The student who is at the pains to examine the readings
given above, will find that while some of them may be merely
recensional, or even due to slips of memory, the greater part
imply a different rendering of the Hebrew, or even in some
cases a different Hebrew text from that which is presupposed
by the Lxx. (Gen. vi. 14, Deut. viii. 18), whilst in others we
seem to have a conflation of two renderings (Gen. iv. 21, ix.
25), one of which is preserved in all extant MSS. of the Lxx.,
while the other agrees more nearly with the Hebrew. When
the MSS. of the Lxx..are at variance, Philo inclines on the
whole to Cod. B’, but the preponderance is not strongly
marked. Thus in Exodus—Deuteronomy, he agrees with B
against one or more of the other uncials sixty times, while in
fifty-two places he takes sides against B. It has been observed
that in several instances where Philo opposes the combined
witness of the uncials, he goes with Lucian; e.g. Lev. xvill. 5
ὁ ποιήσας; Deut. xii. 8 ὅσα, xxxil. 4+ ἐν αὐτῷ.

Besides substantial variants, Philo’s quotations shew many
departures from the Lxx. which may be ascribed to inaccuracy,
defects of memory, or the writers method of citing. Thus
(2) he omits certain words with the view of abbreviating;
(4) he substitutes for a portion of his text a gloss or other
explanatory matter of his own; (c) he exchanges Hebraisms
and words or phrases which offend him for others in accord-
ance with a correct literary style; (4) he forms a fresh sentence
out of two or more different contexts.

E.g. (a) Gen. xxiv. 20 καὶ δραμοῦσα ἐπὶ τὸ φρέαρ ὑδρεύσατο
ταῖς καμήλοις (LXX., καὶ ἔδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ καὶ
ὑδρ. πάσαις ταῖς καμήλοις). (6) Num. v. 2 ἐξαποστειλάτωσαν ἐκ
τῆς ἁγίου ψυχῆς (LXX. ἐκ τῆς παρεμβολῆς) πάντα λεπρόν. (4) Gen.
XXVlll. 13 ἡ γῆ (ν. 1. τὴν γῆν) ἐφ᾽ ἧς σὺ καθεύδεις ( -- ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς LXX.)

1 In Genesis i.—xlvi. 27, where B is wanting, Philo shews on the
whole a similar preference for the text represented by D. The figures,
which are Dr Ryle’s, are based on Mangey’s text, but the new edition, so
far as examined, gives very similar results.

3706 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.

σοὶ δώσω αὐτήν. (4) Gen. xvil. I1+xxxv. II ἐγώ εἰμι θεὸς σός" ἐγὼ
ὁ θεός cov: αὐξάνου καὶ πληθύνου (Phil. iil. 161. 4 f.).

The majority of Philo’s quotations from the Lxx. are
modified in one or other of these ways. Philo entertained
the highest veneration for the Jewish canon, especially for
the law, which he regarded as a body of Divine oracles’; and
his respect for the Alexandrian Version was at least as great
as that with which the Authorised Version is regarded in
England, and Luther’s Version in Germany. Nevertheless he
did not scruple to quote his text freely, changing words at
pleasure, and sometimes mingling interpretation with citation.
This method of dealing with a source, however high its
authority, was probably not peculiar to Philo, but a literary
habit which he shared with other Jewish writers of his age”.
We shall have occasion to observe it again when we consider
the use of the Lxx. by the writers of the New Testament.

6. The Alexandrian Version was also used by the Pales-
tinian Jew, Flavius Josephus, who represents Jewish Hellen-
istic literature in the generation which followed Philo. He was
born at Jerusalem within the lifetime of the great Alexandrian
(A.D. 37—8). He was descended from a priestly family*;
his early education familiarised him with the learning of the
Rabbis, and the opinions of the great schools of Jewish
thought; in his nineteenth year he was enrolled a member
of the sect of the Pharisees*. His earliest work, on the
Jewish War, was written in Aramaic’, and when he desired to
translate it into Greek, he was constrained to seek assistance
(c. Ap. i. 9 χρησάμενός τισι πρὸς THY Ἑλληνίδα φωνὴν συνεργοῖς
οὕτως ἐποιησάμην τῶν πράξεων τὴν παράδοσιν). But the Antigui-
ties of the Jews (αἱ Ἰωσήπου ἱστορίαι τῆς ᾿Ιουδαϊκῆς ἀρχαιολογίας),

1 See Ryle, p. xvi. ff.
Ci DiC. Be iv. pi 387%:

δ αὶ 4 Jb. 2.
5 B. F. prooem. 1 τῇ πατρίῳ [sc. γλώσσῃ] συντάξας.

Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists. 377

which appear to have been completed in a.D. 93—4, form an
original Greek work which, so far as we know, was composed
without material help. In it Josephus professes to interpret
the Hebrew records for the benefit of Hellenic readers: Avy. 1.

proem. τ ταύτην δὲ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἐγκεχείρισμαι πραγματείαν,

νομίζων ἅπασι φανεῖσθαι τοῖς “Ἕλλησιν ἀξίαν σπουδῆς" μέλλει γὰρ
περιέξειν ἅπασαν τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀρχαιολογίαν καὶ διάταξιν τοῦ
πολιτεύματος ἐκ τῶν Ἔβραϊκῶν μεθηρμηνευμένην γραμμά-
των. His chief source, therefore, was the Hebrew Bible, with
which he was doubtless acquainted from boyhood’. Never-
theless, there is ample evidence in the Axtiguities that the
writer knew and, for the purpose of his work, used the
Alexandrian Greek version. He does not, indeed, like Philo,
quote formally either from the Hebrew or from the Greek,
but he shews a knowledge of both.

His indebtedness to the Lxx. appears in a variety of ways.
(a2) He interprets proper names as they are interpreted by the
LXX. e.g. Ant. τ. 1. 2 Eva...onpaiver...ravtwv μητέρα (Gen. 11].
20); 1. 2. 1 Κᾶις... κτίσιν (v. 1. κτῆσιν) σημαίνει (Gen. iv. 1);
lil. 1. 6 καλοῦσι δὲ “EBpato. τὸ βρῶμα τοῦτο μάννα" τὸ yap μὰν
ἐπερώτησις...᾿ τί τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν᾽ ἀνακρίνουσα (Exod. xvi. 15); v. 10.
3 Σαμουῆλον... θεαίτητον av τις εἴποι (1 Regn. 1. 20). (4) His
narrative frequently follows a Heb. text different from the M.T.,
but represented by the Lxx.; e.g. Ant. vi. 4. 1 ἦσαν ἑβδομή-
κοντα τὸν ἀριθμόν (1 Regn. ix. 22, {#4 Dyows) ; Vl. II. 4
ὑποθεῖσα τοῖς ἐπιβολιαίοις ἧπαρ (Ἴ33) αἰγός (1 Regn. xix. 13,
HA VAD); vi. 12. 4 Δώηγος δ᾽ ὁ Σύρος ὁ τὰς ἡμιόνους αὐτοῦ
βόσκων (1 Regn. xxii. 9, $1 ANS aV ΔΨ) ΝΗ ΠῚ INT 2.)
Wit, “2.1 ies evpovtes...Tov ᾿Ιέσβωθον καὶ μήτε τοὺς φύλακας
παρόντας μήτε τὴν θυρωρὸν ἐγρηγορυῖαν (cf. 2 Regn. iv. 6 LXx. καὶ
ἰδοὺ 4 θυρωρὸς ἐνύσταξεν καὶ ἐκάθευδεν); vil. 5. 3 ὕστερον ὃ τῶν

1 He possessed a copy of the sacred books which Titus granted him from

the spoils of the Temple: Vit. 75 τὴν αἴτησιν ἐποιούμην Τίτον... βιβλίων
ἱερῶν [kai] ἔλαβον χαρισαμένου Τίτου.

378 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.

Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεὺς Σούσακος... ἔλαβε (2 Regn. vill.7, LXX.;, JA).
(¢) Whilst retailing in his own words the story of the Hebrew
records, he falls from time to time into the peculiar phrase-
ology of the Alexandrian version. A few examples will make
this evident. Anz. i. 1 (Gen. 1. 1 ff.), ἐν ἀρχῇ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς
TOV οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν...γενέσθαι φῶς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ θεός...
διεχώρισε τό τε φῶς καὶ τὸ σκότος...καὶ αὕτη μὲν av εἴη
πρώτη ἡμέρα, Μωυσῆς δ᾽ αὐτὴν μίαν εἶπε...τὸ τῶν τετραπόδων
γένος ἄρρεν καὶ θῆλυ ποιήσας. 1. το. 3 (Gen. xv. g f.) δάμα-
λιν τριετίζουσαν καὶ αἶγα τριετίζουσαν καὶ κριὸν ὁμοίως
τριετῆ καὶ τρυγόνα καὶ περιστερὰν κελεύσαντος διεῖλε, τῶν
ὀρνέων οὐδὲν διελών. i. 18. 7 (Gen. xxvii. 30) παρῆν “Hoads
ἀπὸ τῆς θήρας. i. 20. 2 (Gen. xxxil. 23 f.) χειμάρρουν τινὰ
‘la Baxxov λεγόμενον διαβεβηκότων Ἰάκωβος ὑπολελειμμένος
οὐ διεπάλαιεν. ii. 4. 1 (Gen. xxxix. 1) Ἰώσηφον δὲ πωλούμενον
ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμπόρων ὠνησάμενος Πετεφρῆς ἀνὴρ Αἰγύπτιος ἐπὶ
τῶν Φαραώθου μαγείρων. il. 6. 1 (Gen. Χ]]. 45) προσηγόρευσεν
αὐτὸν Ψονθονφάνηχον... ἄγεται γὰρ καὶ Πετεφροῦ θυγατέρα τῶν
ἐν τῇ Ἡλιουπόλει ἱερέων... ᾿Α σέννηθιν ὀνόματι. il. 7. 5 (Gen.
xlvi. 28) ἀπαντησόμενος ἔξεισι καὶ καθ᾽ Ἣ ρώων πόλιν αὐτῷ
συνέβαλεν᾽. (4) There is evidence to shew that Josephus used
1 Esdras, which is known only in a Greek form, and the Book
of Esther with the Greek additions. 1 Zsdras. Ant. xi. 1. 1
(1 Esdr. ii, 3 f.) Κῦρος ὁ βασιλεὺς λέγει Ἐπεί pe ὁ θεὸς ὁ
μέγιστος τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀπέδειξε βασιλέα, τὸν ναὸν αὐτοῦ
οἰκοδομήσω ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ χώρᾳ. Xi. 2. 2
(. Esdr. ii. 21, cf. 2 Esdr. iv. 17) βασιλεὺς Καμβυσῆς
Ῥαθύμῳ τῷ γράφοντι τὰ προσπίπτοντα καὶ Βεελζέμῳ καὶ
Σεμελίῳ γραμματεῖ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς συντασσομένοις
καὶ οἰκοῦσιν ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ καὶ Φοινίκῃ τάδε λέγει. Xi. 3.
2—8 =1 Esdr. iii.—iv. Zsther. Ant. xi. 6. 6=Esth. B; xi.
6: 8 ᾿Ξ Ὁ, Ὁ); xi. 6..12 f.=E,, The first Book of Maccanems

1 For some of these instances I am indebted to a collation made by
Mr C. G. Wright for the Editors of the larger LXx.

Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellentsts. 379

was also known to Josephus in its Greek form’, which under-
lies his account of the Maccabean wars, just as the Greek
translation of the canonical books is used in the earlier books
of the Antiquities.

A recent examination, by A. Mez, of Basle’, into the
Biblical text presupposed by Josephus’ history in Azf. v.—vil.
has led to the following results, which are important for the
criticism of the Lxx. (1) The Josephus text of the Lxx. has
no affinity with the characteristic text of cod. B. (2) In Joshua
it generally approximates to the text of #4. (3) In Judges
it is frequently, but not constantly, Lucianic; in 1, 2 Kingdoms
it agrees with Lucian so closely as to fall into the same omis-
sions and misconceptions; only in four instances, other than
proper names, does it contravene a Lucianic reading, and
three of these are numerical differences, whilst in the fourth
‘Lucian’ appears to have undergone correction, and the read-
ing of Josephus survives in cod. A. These investigations, so
far as they go, point to a probability that in these books the
Greek Bible of Palestine during the second half of the first
century presented a text not very remote from that of the re-
cension which emanated from Antioch early in the fourth.
While Philo the Alexandrian supports on the whole the text
of our oldest uncial cod. B, Josephus the Palestinian seems
to have followed that of an ‘ Urlucian.’

LITERATURE. Hellenistic writers before Philo: Text: C.
Muller, -ragmenta historica Graeca iil. J. Freudenthal, Hellen-
istische Studien i., ii. (Breslau, 1875). Cf. Susemihl, Geschichte
der griech. Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzett, ii. p. 356 ff.; E.
Schurer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes*, iii. p. 345 ff.

Philo: Text: L. Cohn and P. Wendland, Phzlonis Alexandrini
opera guae supersunt (Berlin, vol. i. 1896; vol. ii. 1897; vol. iii.
1898—in progress). Cf. C. F. Hornemann, Specimen exercita-

tionum criticarum in versionem LXX. interpretum ex Philone
(Gottingen, 1773); C. Siegfried, Philo und der tiberlieferte Text

1 Bloch, Dze Quellen d. Fl. Fosephus, p. 8 ff.
2 Die Bibel des Fosephus, p. 79 ff.

380 Use of the LXX. by non-Christian Hellenists.

der LXX. (in Z. f. wiss. Theologie, 1873, pp. 217 ff., 411 ff,
522 f£.);, A.. Edersheim .in ,.D. :C.; B., iv. p. -357 ff.; 2. (atom
Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889), p. 140 ff.; F. C. Cony-
beare, in Eafositor, 1891 p. 456 ff., and Fewish Q. R., 1893,
Ρ. 246 ff., 1896, p. 88ff.; H. E. Ryle, Phzlo and Holy Scripture
(London, 1895); P. Wendland, in Phz/ologus 1898, p. 283 ff.

Sibyllines. Text: A. Rzach, Oracula Sibyllina, Vienna, 1891.
Cf. F. Blass in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p. 177 ff.

Josephus. Text: B. Niese, Fil. Fosephi opera (Berlin, 1887—
1895). Cf. E. Schirer?, E. T. 1. i. p. 77 ff.; A. Edersheim in
DOC hi. ak Ὁ Aart; (οἱ Siegfried in Stade’s Z. |. ὦ tne
Wissenschaft, 1883, p. 32 ff.; H. Bloch, 2226 Quellen des Fi.
Fosephus in seiner Archdologia (Leipzig, 1879); A. Mez, Die
Bibel des Fosephus untersucht fiir Buch v.—vit. der Archaologia
(Basle, 1895).

ΟΡ

QUOTATIONS FROM THE LXx. IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT.

1. THE writings of the New Testament were the work of
some nine authors, of different nationalities and antecedents.
Six of them, according to the traditional belief, were Pales-
tinian Jews; a seventh, though ‘a Hebrew of Hebrew paren-
tage,’ belonged by birth to the Dispersion of Asia Minor; of
the remaining two, one was possibly a Gentile from Antioch,
and the other a ‘Hellenist with Alexandrian proclivities.’
Some diversity of practice as to the literary use of the Greek
Old Testament may reasonably be expected in a collection of
books having so complex an origin.

With few exceptions, the books of the New Testament
abound in references to the Old Testament and in quotations
from it. An exhaustive list of these may be seen at the end
of Westcott and Hort’s Mew Testament in Greek (Text, p.
581 ff.), and in their text the corresponding passages are
distinguished by the use of a small uncial type. But this
device, though otherwise admirable’, does not enable the
student to distinguish direct citations from mere allusions
and reminiscences; and as the distinction is important for
our present purpose, we will begin by placing before him a
table of passages in the Old Testament which are formally
quoted by New Testament writers.

1 See below, p. 403.

382

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

By passages formally cited we understand (1) those which
are cited with an introductory formula, such as τοῦτο γέγονεν wa
πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν (Mt.), οὕτως or καθὼς γέγραπται, or γέγραπται
simply (Mt., Mc., Le., Paul), γεγραμμένον ἐστίν (Jo.), Μωυσῆς
(Δαυεὶδ) λέγει or εἶπεν, λέγει Or εἶπεν ἡ γραφή (Jo., Paul), or τὸ ἅγιον
πνεῦμα (Hebrews); (2) those which, though not announced by a
formula, appear from the context to be intended as quotations,
or agree verbatim with some context in the O. T.

Gen.

Exod.

Table of O.T. passages quoted in the N.T.

1 7 BG ae
115 2

7

24

Vv. 24
xll. I

3> (xxi. 18)
KV. 5

6

12:
XV1L. 5
XVIll. 10, 14
0.4 ean Ke)

12
xxii. 16 .
XXV. 23
xlvil. 31
ll. 14
lii. 5 ff.

ix. 16

xii. 46 (Num. ix. 12, Ps.

. XXxXlil. 20)

Kill. 12

xvi. 4, 15 (Ps. Ixxvil. 24)
18

xIx. 13

xx. 12—17 (Deut.v. 16 ff.)

xxi. 16 (17)

Mt.
Heb.
1 Gor.
Mt.

Heb.
Acts

Rom.
Jas.

Acts
Rom.

Gal.
Rom.
Heb.
Rom.
Heb.
Acts
Mt.

Rom.
John

‘bet
John
2 Cor.
Heb.
Mt.

*1x.. 4, Mic. = ἢ

Iv. 4

XV. 45

ΧΙΧ 5 f.,: Mic... 7.1, eae

_vi. τό, Eph. v. 31

Xl. 5

Vii. 3

lil, 25, Gal. iu. 8

iv. 18

ili. 23, Rom. iv. 3, Gal.
iil. 6

wil. 6 £

iv. 17

ix. 9

30
ix: 7, Heb. πὶ 5
vi. 13f.

ΣΙ ΖῚ

Vil, 27k

Xxli. 32, Mc. xii. 26, Le.
_ Xx. 37, Acts vil. 32 ff.
ik ΤῊ

x1x. 36

ii. 23

vi. 31 ff.

Vill. 15

ΧΙ]. 20

v. 21, 27, xv. 4—6, xix.
181.) Mc.’ vilv Tepe
19, Le. xviii. 20, James
il. 11, Rom. vii. 7, xiii.
9, Eph. vi. 2f.

xv. 4, Mc. vii. 10

Quotations from the LX X.in the New Testament.

Exod. xxi: -24(Ley.: xxiv. 5:20.

Lev.

Num.
Deut.

2 Regn.
3 Regn.
Psalm

Deutixm, 21)
XXll. 28
xxiv. 8
XXV. 40
MXXIL., I

XXxXill. 19

mie Ὁ (Hix. 25 xx. 75/26)
xii. 6, ὃ

Xvliil. 5 (2 Esdr. xix. 29)
ΙΧ: 18

XxV1.11f.(Ezek. xxxvii.27)
XV1. 5
IV. 35
vi. 4f.

1, 16
Vill. 3
1X3: τὸ
Evil, 15, τ,
1K) ΤΡ

<x. 25
xv, I
Xxv. 4
XXVIl. 26
xx. ἢ
18
XXX. I2—I4
ΧΣΣΙ ΟΣ G(Josi i 5)

XXXll. 21

35
30 (Ps. cxxxiv. 14)
43 (Ps. xcvi. 7)
vil. 8, 14
x1x. 10, 14, 18
1 ΝΕ
mi
viii. 2
7 9
Xlil. 3 (v. 10, ix. 28, xxxv.
2, lil, I—3, Cxxxix. 4,
Isa. lix. 7 f.)

383
v. 38

XXlil. 5

x: 194,

Vill. 5

vii. 40

27

ib Peg r=

1. 16

li. 22 ff.

x:( 5 Gaby tity 12

γ- 43)-xix. ΠΟ ἘΠ 40,
Me. xu. 91, ΠΟ Χ 2.
James ii. 8, Rom. xiii.
9; Gal. v. 14

vi. 16

11. 19

ΧΊ 52

Xxll. 37f, Mex xii: 29—
33, Bex. 27

IV} 25 ΤΟΙ ΤΣ AV, 8. ΤΣ

iV. A, Lesivi

ΧΗ 27 tr)

lik, 2206 wine ay

xvii. 16, Jo. viii. 17, 2 Cor.
Xlll. I

lil. 13

Vi 31. ike Zee. χὰ

ix. Ὁ, I Tim. vi 38

lll. 10

x1. 8

ΧΗΣ ΤΕ

x. 6—8

Xlil. 5

x. 19

xii. 19, Heb. x. 30

x: 30

iG

Vi-wbo, Heb! τς

aly 9.0,

ἵν 25'f.

ππῚ..55. ἘΠ τ 5, ve 5

x1. 16

xv. 27, Heb. ii. 6—8

111. 1IoO—18

384 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

Psalm xv. 8—II

Prov.

Job
Hos.

XVil. 50
XVlil. 5
XX1. 2
9
19
23
Syl. ἢ
Xxx. I f.

XXXUl. 13—I7
XXXIV. 19 (Ixvill. 5)

ΧΧΧΙΧ. 7—9Q
xl. 10
xl 22
xlivi 74.
1 Ὁ
1 25
Ixvil. 19
lxviil. IO
23f.
26
Ixxvil. 2
Ιχχχι: Ὁ
IxxxVill. 21
ΣΟ
XCllil. II
xciv. 8—II
ci. /26—28
Clll. 4
cvili. 8
ΕἸΧῚ

4
Cxi. 9
ἜΝ (ἢ
Cxvl. I
Cxvli. 6

anf

ΠῚ 178.
54

ΧΙ. 31

xxv. 21 f.

XXVi. II

Vv. 13

1. 10

Acts. ii. 25—28
Rom. xv. 9
x. 18
Mt. xxvii. 46, Mc. xv. 34
RXVIGs..43
Jo. x1x. 24
Heb. ii. 12
i. Core κ᾿ 26; 23
Rom. iv. 6—8
I Pet. 1. Io—12
Jo. XV. 25
Heb. x. 5—7
Jo. ΧΙ]. 18
Rom. viii. 36
Heb. 1-3.
Rom. iil. 4
Tet. (veg
Eph. iv. 8
Jo. li. 17, Rom: κυ Ὁ
Rom. Xi. Of.
Acts 1.20
Mt. X1ll. 35
Jo. Χ. 34
Acts xili.22
Mt. iv. 6, Le. 1¥2 19%
I Cor: aii. 20
Heb. 111. 7—II
i. IO—I2
1. 7
Acts. ἀΞ 29
Μι. Xxli. 44, ΜΟΙ χα 330. Ἐπ
xx. 421: Acts 11: 34f,,
Heb. 1..13
Heb. | vi δι 9.1
2 Cor, 1x Ὁ
iw 12
Rom, (+ xv. 14
Heb. xiii. 6
Mt. xxi. 42,1 Mé. xiL pees
Le xx. 17, i ΒΘ
Heb. xii. 5f.
785. ἵν 6) 1 Beka
I Pet. ἵν. 18
Rom. xii. 20
2 Pet. 2 N22
t.Coer {11/59
Rom. ix. 26

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 585

Hos.

Amos

Mic.
Joel
Hab:

Zech.

Mal.

Isa.

i. 23
vi. 6
ΧΙ Ὶ
ΧΙ]. 14

Vil. 14
Vill. 14
17
ix. ¥ f.
eae eo
ped 4
exit 13
xxv. 8
ἘΣΎ EI Tf.
16
¥xix, 16
13
14
xl. 3—5

6—8
15...
ΧΙ]. I—4
Ἐν 22
xlix. 6
8 ,
lil. 5
7 (Nah. i. 15)
14h

Rom.
Mt.

t Cor

Acts

Mt.
Acts

Rom.

Jude
Mt.

Jo.
Mt.
Rom.
Mt.

Rom.
Mt.

Rom.
Heb.
Mt.

Rom.

Cor.

Rom.

Mt.

t Cor

Mt.

Lye es
Rom.
Mt.
Rom.
Acts

2 Cor.

Rom.

2 Cor,

IX. 25

1 15: Riis 7

He 5

ἊΝ. ΕΝ

vil. 42 Ὁ

XV. I5—I7

li. 5 f. (Jo. vii. 42)

il. 17--21

ΧΙ]. 41

1. 17, Gal. i. ἘΠῚ Heb. x.
371.

XX. 5, Jo. ΧΠ. ΤΡ

XxVil. Qf.

Xix. 37

XKVI.' 31, Mic. Xv: 27

1x. 13

χι. 10, Mc} 1-27 Le. vm
27

ix. 29

xili. 14 f., Mc. iv. 12, Le.
watts ‘fo, 70: χα 201.
Acts xxvili. 26f.

i. 23

xX. 33,0 Pew its

ey ease απ Petia. 6

x1. 8

LV. ΘΠ: Mic. vit Of:

1. 19

Hier g, SMe: 35) bey iii
4—6, Jo. 1. 23

1 2A Ὁ

ἘΠ πα Coritii 16

ΧΙ]. 18—21

RIV. ET

Xlll. 47

Vi 2

11:24

Χο Ἐν

Ng Pas i

25

7

386 Quotations from the LXX.in the New Testament.

isa’ Tha: 15 Rom. xv. 21
iii x Jo. xil. 38, Rom. x. 16
4 Mt. Vili. 17
4 Pet. 2 4 Ὁ
71 Acts 1. 521
12 Mc. xv. 28, Le} ΧΧ ΟΣ
liv. I ΕΙΣ .1v.27
13 Jo. V1. 45
v3 Acts xill. 34
lvi. 7 Mt. xxi. 13, Mc; αι τῷ τ
1%: 16
lix, 20% Rom. xi. 26f.
Ixi. rf. isc: Ve. 164:
Ixiv. 4 TG: - UL (Ὁ)
eve rt: Rom, (x. Zor,
lsd: τς Acts vil. 49f.
24 Mc. ix. 48
Jer. Vii. II Mt. xxi. 13, Μο κί τ ΟΣ
ΧΙΧ. 46
ix. 23 f. (1 Regn. 1i. Io) ΤΟΥ: 1: 31,2 (οἵ ἘΠῊΝ
XXXVI. 15 Mt. ii. 18
31---34 Heb. ν111. 8—12
Dan. xe ἀπ (x. 227) x1. 31) Mt. xxiv. 15, Mc. ΧΠ ΤῈ

Thus upon a rough estimate the passages directly quoted
from the Old Testament by writers of the New Testament are
160. Of these 51 belong to the Pentateuch, 46 to the Poetical
Books, and 61 to the Prophets. Among single books the Psalter
supplies 40 and Isaiah 38; i.e. nearly half of the passages
expressly cited in the N.T. come from one or other of these two
sources.

2. The table already given shews the extent to which the
Old Testament is directly cited in the New. In that which
follows the comparison is inverted, and the student will be
able to see at a glance how the quotations are distributed
among the several groups of writings of which the New
Testament is made up.

(1) Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels.

Mt. Mc. Lc, CRA Ig:
1: 28 Isa. vii. 14
1. 23°- Exod, xiii: 12

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

Mt. Mc. Ee: os. FE,
il. 6 Mic. v. 2
15 Hos. xi. I
18 Jer. xxxvill. 15
mM, 3 ΓΞ ili. 4—6 Isa. xl. 3—5
es itt Iv. 4 Deut. vili. 3
6 τον ΡΟΣ TERT.
a 12 Deut. vi. 16
Io 8 13
15 f. Isa. ix. 1f.
Vo 120 Exod. xx. 13
27 14
31 Deut. xxiv. I
33 Num. xxx. 3 (cf. Deut. xxiii.
21)
38 Exod. xxi. 24
43 Rev. xix. 16
Vill. 17 Isa, 111. 4
eee) FS (xii, 7) Hos. vi. 6
i? Io 1: 2 ὙΠ: 27 Malian. 1
mu) oF Hos. vi. 6
18—2I Tsae xii.
xi. τῇ ἢ vi. Of.
35 Ps, lxxvil. 2
iv. 18f. Isa. lxi. 1 ff.+l1viii. 6
xv; a Vii. 10 τ χοῦ χα, ΤΟ ΣΙ τὸ
8 f. 6 Isa xxix. 13
ix. 48 Ixvl. 24
mis GE x. 6—8 Gen. 1. 27 +ii. 24
18 f. x. 19 xvili. 20f. Exod. xx. 12—17
a) 4:1 Zech. ix. 9+.Isa. ἔστι 11
13 RUAT7 xix. 46 Isa. lvi. 7+Jer. vil. 11
16 Ps.ividie2
2 ΧΙ. IO xx. 07 Cxvil. 22 f.
ἜΧΗ 2 19 28 Deut.xxv.5(cf.Gen.xxxvill.
a2 26 37> ἜΧΟΙ ΗΠ 6
37 29 f. x. 27° Denti vi. 2
39 31 27 εἰ ὃ
44 36. xx. 422 ΒΞ ΤΟΙΣΟῚ
29 Deut. vi. 4
32 ἷν. 35
ποτ: 05 xlli. 14 Dan. xii. II
xxl. 370 sas hiv 12
XXVI. 31 XIV. 27 Zech. xili. 7
xxvii. Ὁ f. Ki. 23
46 XV. 34 PS. Sx1. I

25—2

388

Jo.

Acts

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

(2) Quotations in the Fourth Gospel.

1.22 Isa
11 17 Ps.
vi. 31 Exod
45 Isa
x: 34 Ps:
pit ae Zech
38 Isa
40
KV 25 Ps
ΧΟ (2
26 Exod
37 Zech

ὙΠ 3

Ixvill. IO

Xvi. 4, 15 (Ps. Ixxvii. 24f.)

liv. 13

Ixxxi. 6

ix. 9

1π|:.1

vi. IO

XXXIV. IQ (Ixvill. 5)

ΣΧΧῚ ΤῸ

xii. 46 (Num. ix. 12, Ps.
XXXiil. 21)

Xll. 10

(3) Quotations in the Acts.

1. 20 Ps;
11. 17—2I1 Joel
25—28 Ps.
ἀρ ραρεν
11:25 {|| 5 7) Deut.
25 Gen.
iv. 25-4 Ps:
Vil. 3 Gen.
Gt
2735 Exod.
331.
40
42 f. . Amos
49 f. Isa.
Vill. 32 f.
Xlll. 22 Ps.
33
34 Isa.
35 Ps.
41 Hab.
47 Isa.
xv. 16—18 Jer.
XXVill. 26 f. Isa.

Ixviil. 26+ cviil. 8

11. 28—32
xv. 8—II
Cx: ἢ

Xvill. 15, 18 f.

Xll. 3+xxil. 18

te so

Xl. I

xuci3 f

ll. 14

ill. 6—8

xXx 23

ν. 25—27

Ixvi. skid:

tii. Fa

Ixxxvill. 21 etc.

ae

lv. 3

XV. 10

Lis

xlix. 6

ΧΙΪ 15-+Amos ix. 11 f.+
Isa. xlv. 21

vi. 9 f.

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 389

(4) Quotations in the Catholic Epistles.

James 11. ὃ Lev.” ate. 18
II Exod) (xx-1si,
23 Gen. xv. 6
iv. 6 Prov. ili. 34
I Peter i. 24f. Isa. xl. 6—9
ii. 6 XXVIll. 16
111. IO—I12 Bs. ΧΧΧΙΙΙ. 12 —I7
iv. 18 Prov; Xi231
Va Ps, liv. 23
2 Peter it. 22 Prov. Xxv1, ΤΙ
Jude 9 Zech; ih -2

(5) Quotations in the Epistles of St Paul.

hom, {41:1 Hab: 11.4
ll. 24 Isa. * “lace
ili. 4 Ps. 1. 6
Io—18 ΧΙ]. I—3}
20 ΝΠ 2
15; 22 Gen τ τὸ
ihe Be: ed ΓΙ
17 Gen ** XVI. 5
18 XV. 5
Vil 7 ΕΟ xk TA. U7
Vill. 36 Ps. xlill. 23
be 7 Gen” ΧΣΥΓ ΤΣ
9 XVill. 10
ΕΝ τ xxv. 25
13 Many ize
15 Exod. xxxill. 19
7 ix. 16
26 ΗΟ σ᾽ τὸ
27 Isa. x27 Tt
29 1- Ὁ
33 Vill. 14 +Xxvill. 16
x. 6—9 Deut. xxx. II—I4
15 158 ha 7 ΝΑΙ 15)
16 lili. I
18 Ps; XVIl1. 5
19 Deut, :Xxxti. 21
20 f. Isa? Wihtvs FE

1 See above, p. 251f.

999

Rom.

1 Cor:

2. or.

Gal.

Eph.

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

χὶ. 14

3f.
8

9
26f.
341
xll. 29 f.
Xlil. 9
siy.*r!
XV. 3

~

XCill. 14

. X1x. 10, 14, 18

XxIx. 10+ Deut. xxix. 4

Ixvul. 23 f.+xxxiv. 8

lix. 20+ xxvil. 9

Dae

EXV. 211,

xx. 13 ff., Lew. simone

xlv. 23

Ixvili. 10

xvll. 50 (2 Regn. xxii.
50)

XXX11. 43

CXVI. I

ΧΙ. IO

111. 15

XxIx. 14

1x. 24

Ixiv. 4-+Ixv. 17 (?)

vi 13

XCill. II

ll. 24

XXV. 4

XXXII. 6

XXlil. I

XXVill. II f.

EXIL 13

7

xxv. 8+ Hos. ΧΙ]. 14

Cxv. I

xlix. 8

XXXVIl. 27+ Isa. lii. 11

xvi. 18

ΟΧΙ. 9

Ix. 24

cxlil. 2

xv. 6

Xll. 3

XXVil. 26

ll. 4

ΧΡ]. 5

NXis 23

Ise, 1

ΧΧΙ. 10

xix. 18

Ixvili. 19

Vili. 16

Quotations from the 1, Χ Δ΄. 17 the New Testament. 391

Fiph.:,, iy..26 Ps. Iv. 5
Nop ad Gen. .11:.24.
vi. 2 Exod, ΣΝ 12

1 Tim. v. 18 Deut. xxv. 4

2 Tim. il. 19 Num. xvi. 5

(6) Quotations in the Epistle

to the Hebrews.

Hebs )) a5 Ps. iil. 7 (2 Regn. vii. 14)
6 xcvl. 7 (Deut. xxxli. 43)
7 ΠῚ 4
8 f. ΣΙ ΤΥ f
IoO—I2 ci. 26—28
13 Cm
11. 6—8 vill. 5—7
12 Xi 23
13 Isa. vill. 17 f.
111. 7—I2 Ps: xciv. 8—II
lv. 4 Gen. 11.2
ν OVE £75 21) Ps. ΕἸΣ 4
vino t Gen. xxii. 16f.
Vill. 5 Exod. xxv. 40
8—13, x. 16f. Jer. XXXVI. 3I—34
im 20 Exod. xxiv. 8
x. 5—I10 Ps: ΧΧΧΙΧ. 7—9Q
30 Deut.) xxxi. ΠΕ
272. Habe 1 St
#105 Gen. v. 24
18 ΧΙ
21 xlvil. 31
ἈΠ ΒΕ Prove ii. 11 &
15 Deut. xxix. 18
20 Exod, τ Xix., 12 fi
26 Hagg. 11. 6
ΠῚ 5 Deut) *xxx1-0,"S
6 Ps. Cxvil. 6

Some interesting results follow from an inspection of these
lists. (1) The Synoptic Gospels have 46 distinct quotations
(Mt. 40, Mc. 19, Le. 17), of which 18 are peculiar to Mt.,
3 to Mc., 3 to Le. There are to which are common to the
three, 3 common to Mt. and Mc., 4 to Mt. and Lc., but none

392 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

which are shared by Mc. and Le. to the exclusion of Mt.
(2) Of the 12 quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 3 only are also
in the Synoptists. (3) The 23 quotations in the Acts occur
almost exclusively in the speeches. (4) The Johannine Epistles
do not quote the O. T. at all, and the other Catholic Epistles
contain few direct citations. (5) Of 78 quotations in St Paul,
71 are in the four first Epistles (Romans 42, 1—2 Corinthians
19, Galatians 10); there are none in the Epistles of the Roman
captivity, with the exception of Ephesians, which has five.
(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews quotes 28 passages, of which
21 are not cited in any other N. T. writing!. (7) The Apoca-
lypse does not quote, but its language is full of O. T. phrase-
ology to an extent unparalleled in the other books.

3. Hitherto no account has been taken of the relation
which the N. T. quotations bear to the Alexandrian version,
although for the sake of convenience the references to the
O. T. have been given according to the order and numeration
of the Greek Bible. We may now address ourselves to this
further question; and it may at once be said that every part of
the N. T. affords evidence of a knowledge of the Lxx., and
that a great majority of the passages cited from the O. T. are
in general agreement with the Greek version. It is calculated
by one writer on the subject that, while the N. T. differs from
the Massoretic text in 212 citations, it departs from the Lxx.
in 185°; and by another that “not more than fifty” of the
citations “materially differ from the Lxx.*” On either estimate
the Lxx. is the principal source from which the writers of the
N. T. derived their O. T. quotations.

More may be learnt by patiently examining the details of
the evidence. This cannot be done here in full, but we may

1 Westcott, Hebrews, p. 473.
2 Turpie, O.7. ix the N., p. 267.
3 Grinfield, Apology for the LXX., p. 37.

Quotations from the LX X.in the New Testament. 393

point out the method to be pursued in such an investigation,
and its chief results.

Each group of the N. T. writings must be interrogated
separately. (a) Beginning with the Synoptic Gospels, we
observe that the quotations partly occur in narratives or
dialogue which are common to the Synoptists or to two of
them, and are partly due to the individual writer. Between
these two classes of quotations there is a marked contrast.
Citations belonging to the common narrative, or to sayings
reported by all the Synoptists, or to two of them, with
few exceptions adhere closely to the Lxx., the differences
being only textual or in the way of omission.

Some examples wiil make this clear. (1) Cztatéons common to
nih. | Nite sore n 75. Wie, tt 7 = Lic. xix ΠΟ ΞΞῚῚΣ Χ τ | Me
alone completing the verse. Mt. xxi. 42=Mc. xu. 1o=Le. xx.
17=LXx., Le. omitting mapa Κυρίου καὶ. Mt. xxil. 37=Mc. xii.
Boe = Len ἌΞΕΙΣ Σ᾿ with ..variants*. -. Mt... xxiii; 39= Mc. ,.xi1.
ee eee. | Mite xxi AAs Mic. “xis 36= EO xx. 42 f=
LXX. with the variant ὑποκάτω in Mt., Mc. (2) C2tations common
to Mt., Mc. Mt. xv. 4=Mc. vil. lO=LXxX., cod. A. Mt. xv. 8f.=
Mesvie=- tex with variants’... Mt, xix.5 f= Mcesx, 6fL=1 xx,
Mc. omitting προσκολληθήσεται κτλ. Mt. xxiv. 15=Mc. xili. 14=
LxXx. and Th. Mt. xxvi. 31=Mc. xiv. 27 (omitting τῆς ποίμνης }ΞΞ
LXX., cod. A, with one important variant not found in any MS.
of the LXx.; cod. B has quite a different text®. (3) Citations
common to Mit. Le. Mt. iv. 4=Le. iv. 4=LxXx., Le. omitting
the second half of the quotation. Mt. iv. 6=Le. iv. lof =Lxx.,
except that the clause τοῦ διαφυλάξαι is omitted by Mt. and in
part by Le. Mt. iv. 7=Le. iv. 12=Lxx. Mt. iv. 1o=Le. iv. 8=
LXxX., cod. A.

Thus it appears that of 14 quotations which belong to this
class only two (Mt. xv. 8 f., xxvi. 31) depart widely from the
Lxx. But when we turn from the quotations which belong to
the common narrative to those which are peculiar to one of
the Synoptists, the results are very different.

* On these see Hatch, Assays, p. 104, and the writer’s St Mark, p. 255.

5 ΤΙΝ. 64. ci, p- 177 f.
3 St Mark, p. 318 f.

394 Quotations from the LX Δ΄. in the New Testament.

In Mt. there are 16 quotations which are not to be found in
Me. or Lc. (Mt. i. 23, 11. δ. ΕΞ, 18, νοῦ ἢ, v.33, 36, 43> τ ον
ΙΧ. 13=xil. 7, xi. 18 ff., xi. 14f,, 35, xxi. 4 £, 16, xxv. On) ee
these 4 (Ὁ. 38, ix. 13, xili. 14f., xxi. 16) are in the words of the
LXX. with slight variants; 4 exhibit important variants, and the
remaining 7 bear little or no resemblance to the Alexandrian
Greek}. Neither Mc. nor Le. has any series of independent
quotations; Mc. ix. 48, xii. 32 are from the LXxX., but shew
affinities to the text of cod. A; Lec. iv. 18 f. differs from the LXx.
in important particulars.

It may be asked whether the quotations in the Synoptists
which do not agree with our present text of the Lxx., or with
its relatively oldest type, imply the use of another Greek
version. Before an answer to this question can be attempted,
it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the causes
which have produced variation. It may be due to (a) loose
citation, or to (6) the substitution of a gloss for the precise
words which the writer professes to quote, or to (ὦ a desire to
adapt a prophetic context to the circumstances under which it
was thought to have been fulfilled, or to (4) the fusing together
of passages drawn from different contexts. Of the variations
which cannot be ascribed to one or other of these causes,
some are (4) recensional, whilst others are (/) translational,
and imply an independent use of the original, whether by the
Evangelist, or by the author of some collection of excerpts
which he employed.

The following may be taken as specimens of these types of
variation. (@) Mt. ii, 18, xxi. 4f.; (6) Mt. ii. 6, xxvii. of.; (¢c) Mt.
11.15; (41) Le.iv. 18f.; (6) Mt. xii. 18 ff., Mc. xii. 298. ;°(7) eee
35>. But more than one cause of divergence may have been at
work in the same quotation, and it is not always easy to decide
which is paramount; e.g. in Mt. li. 15 the substitution of τὸν
υἱόν μου for ra τέκνα αὐτῆς may be due either to the Evangelist’s
desire to adapt the prophecy to the event, or to a correction of

the LXx. from the Heb. (33).

The three last-named causes of variation need to be con-
sidered at some length.

1 Cf. Sir J. Ὁ. Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 123 ff.

ν
|

Quotations from the LX Δ΄. ἐπ the New Testament. 395

(1) A few of the Synoptic quotations are manifestly
composite. E.g. Mt. xxl. 4f., which is mainly from Zech.
ix. 9, Opens with a clause from Isa. lxii. 11 (εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ
Σιών ᾿Ιδού κτλ.). Le. iv. 18 f., which is professedly an extract
from a synagogue lesson Isa. lxi. 1 ff., inserts in the heart of
that context a clause from Isa. lvill. 6 (ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυ-
σμένους ἐν ἀφέσει). Still more remarkable is the fusion in Mc.
i. 2 ἢ, where, under the heading καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ “Hoaia
τῷ προφήτῃ, we find Mal. 11]. 1+Isa. xl. 2. Here the parallel
passages in Mt., Le., quote Isaiah only, using Malachi in
another context (Mt. xi. τὸ, Le. vii. 27).

(2) There is a considerable weight of evidence in favour
of the belief that the Evangelists employed a recension of
the Lxx. which came nearer to the text of cod. A than to
that of our oldest uncial B. This point has been recently
handled in Hilgenfeld’s Zettschrift f. Wissenschaftliche Theologie’,
by Dr W. Staerk, who shews that the witness of the N. T. almost
invariably goes with codd. sAF and Lucian against the Vatican
MS., and that its agreement with cod. A is especially close’.
It may of course be argued that the text of these authorities
has been influenced by the N. T.*; but the fact that a similar
tendency is noticeable in Josephus, and to a less extent in
Philo, goes far to discount this objection. Still more remark-
able is the occasional tendency in N. T. quotations to support
Theodotion against the Lxx.° Some instances have been
given already; we may add here Mt. xii. 18 = Isa. xli. 1:

Mt. LXX. fh.
ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν Ἰακὼβ ὁ παῖς pou ἰδοὺ 6 παῖς μου,
ἡρέτισα, 6 ἀγαπητός μου ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ: ἀντιλήψομαι αὐτοῦ"
ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψἕυχηῃ Ἰσραὴλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου ὃν
μου. μου, προσεδέξατο εὐδόκησεν ἡ Ψυχή
αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου. μου.
1 St Mark, p. 2. 2 In nos. xxxv., XXXVi., XXXVili., xl.
ἐπ χ νη Ὁ ΟΕ “Cf. Zain, Einleitune, A. p. 314i

BD Cfo pe 15:

306 Quotations from the 1, .Χ Δ΄. in the New Testament.

Such coincidences lend some probability to the supposition
that Theodotion’s version bears a relation to the recension of
the Alexandrian Greek which was in the hands of the early
Palestinian Church.

(3) Certain quotations in the First Gospel are either
independent of the Lxx., or have been but slightly influenced
by it. These require to be studied separately, and, as they are
but few, they are printed below and confronted with the Lxx.

Mt. 1. 6
kal ov, Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα,
οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἰ ἐν τοῖς
ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα: ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ
ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις
ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου Ἰσραήλ.

ουδαμως] μη D | ex σου] εξ
υ (B*)8C(D) | om yap &*.

Mic. v. 2, 4
,

καὶ σύ, Βηθλέεμ, οἶκος
᾿Εφράθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι
ἐν χιλιάσιν Ἰούδα: ἐξ οὗ μοι

a ἣν

ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα

oS =
τοῦ Ἰσραήλ....καὶ ποιμαν εἴ...

εξ ov] εκ σου ΒΌΞΑΟ | εξε-
λευσεται]- ἡγουμενος A

On the relation of the 1,ΧΧ. in this passage to the Μ. T. see
above p. 338. Χιλιάσιν, ἡγεμόσιν answer to different vocalisations

of ‘DON, but οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ and ἡγούμενος ὅστις π. τὸν λ.
μου are paraphrastic. The Evangelist has put into the mouth
of the Scribes an interpretation rather than a version of the

prophecy.

Mt. iv. 15 f.

yn Ζαβουλὼν καὶ yn Νεῴφ-
θαλείμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν

΄ > / » ΄
τοῦ ‘lopdavov, Ταλειλαία τῶν
5 ~ e A iq ΜΝ >
ἐθνῶν, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν
σκοτίᾳ φῶς εἶδεν μέγα: καὶ τοῖς
καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ
θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς.

οἱ καθημενοι D | και σκια])
om καὶ D*

Isa. ix. I f.

χώρα Ζαβουλών, ἡ yn Νεφ-
θαλείμ, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν
παραλίαν καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἴορ-
δάνου, Ταλειλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν. ὁ
λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει,
ἴδετε φῶς μέγα" οἱ κατοικοῦντες
ἐν χώρᾳ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς

λάμψει ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς.

Νεφθαλειμ] + οδον θαλασσης
&°2AO (Aq. Th.) παραλιαν]-
κατοικουντες ΑΘ | πορευ-
ομενος]) καθημενος A | σκια] pr
και S*@AOT

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 397

Here Mt. differs widely both from Lxx. and M.T., yet he
has points of agreement with both. The influence of LXx. is
seen in γῆ Z.,T. τῶν ἐθνῶν, χώρᾳ [καὶ] σκιᾷ. On the other hand
ὁδὸν Ne eae εἶδεν, αὐτοῖς agree with M.T. The writer quotes
from memory, or from a collection of loosely cited ¢estimonza.

Mt. villi. 17
> x \ > , < ΄
αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν
ἔλ a A A , > /
ἔλαβεν καὶ Tas νόσους ἐβάσ-
τασεν.

Isa. 1111. 4
οὗτος Tas ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν
φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται.

Mt.’s version is based upon Heb., from which the Lxx. departs.

Cf. Symm.: τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνέλαβεν καὶ τοὺς πόνους
ὑπέμεινεν.
Mt. xiii. 35 Ps. Ixxvil. 2
ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ
στόμα μου: ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμ- ono pov: φθέγξομαι προ-

μένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς. βλήματα ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς.

καταβολης -Ἐκοσμου S*CD

V. 352 in Mt. follows the Lxx. verbatim, while 35 is an inde-
pendent rendering of the Heb. The departure from the LXx. in
the second half of the text is not altogether for the sake of
exactness; if ἐρεύξομαι is nearer to MY*AN than φθέγξομαι, ἀπὸ
καταβολῆς introduces a conception which has no place in D271,
and in this sense the Greek phrase is practically limited to the
Me Ti(see’ Lorton & Pet. 1 20):

Mt. xxvii. 9 f.!
καὶ ἔλαβον...τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ
΄ ὰ ’
τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ
΄ > 4 ‘ >
υἱῶν Ἰσραῆλ, καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ

ZACH ΧΙ. 15

καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς μέ
Κάθες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ χωνευτήριον
καὶ σκέψομαι εἰ δόκιμόν ἐστιν,

A , a
eis TOV ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, ὃν τρόπον ἐδοκιμάσθη ὑπὲρ
καθὰ συνέταξέν μοι Κύριος. αὐτῶν. καὶ ἔλαβον... καὶ ἐνέ-

> \ 5» \ a
BaXov αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν οἶκον Kv-
ρίου εἰς τὸ χωνευτηρίον.

εδωκεν A*4 ἐδωκα ἐξ εδοκιμασθην B¥PtXAQO

Mt. has re-arranged this passage, and given its sense, with-
out regard to the order or construction of the original. In doing
this he has abandoned the LXX. altogether, and approximates
to the Heb.; cf. Ag. ἡ τιμὴ ἣν ἐτιμήθην ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.

1 Mt. ascribes this prophecy to Jeremiah: τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ
"Tepeutov τοῦ προφήτου. The slip is probably due to a confusion between
Zach. 1. c. and Jer. xviii. 2.

398 Quotations from the LX Δ΄. in the New Testament.

In these five passages the compiler of the first Gospel has
more or less distinctly thrown off the yoke of the Alexandrian
version and substituted for it a paraphrase, or an independent
rendering from the Hebrew. But our evidence does not
encourage the belief that the Evangelist used or knew another
complete Greek version of the Old Testament, or of any
particular book. It is to be observed that he uses this liberty
only in quotations which proceed from himself, if we except
the references to the O. T. in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.
Vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) which are hardly of the nature of
strict citations; the formula ἐρρέθη rots ἀρχαίοις distinguishes
them from that class, and suggests that they purport only to
give the general sense.

(6) The Fourth Gospel quotes the Lxx. verbatim, or with
slight variants, in cc. Ἢ. 17, x. 34, ΧΙ]. 38, xix. 24, 36; and
more freely in vi. 31, 45, xv. 25. In other places the author
takes a more or less independent course: e.g. in 1. 23,
quoting Isa. xl. 3 he writes εὐθύνατε τὴν δδὸν Κυρίου for ἕτοι-
μάσατε τ. ὃ. K., εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους Tod θεοῦ ἡμῶν (cf.,
Mt. iii. 3, Mc. i. 3, ἴα. 1... 4}} 1 χας μον ἰϑα νιν τ
paraphrased τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ ἐπώρωσεν
αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν, Which agrees neither with the Lxx. nor with
M.T.; in xix. 37 ὄψονται eis ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν is a non-Septuagintal
rendering of Zach. xii. 10, which was perhaps current in
Palestine, since εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν appears also in Theodotion
(cf. Aq., Symm., and Apoc. 1. 7).

(ὃ The quotations from the O.T. in the Acts are taken
from the Lxx. exclusively. With the exception of the περιοχή
in c, viii. 32', they occur only in the speeches. A few points
deserve special notice. In vii. 43 (=Amos v. 26) the Lxx. is
followed against M.T. (Ῥαμφά(ν) or Ῥαιφαάν, {#4 13)3). Simi-
larly in xiii. 34 (=Isa. lv. 3) τὰ ὅσια Δανείδ is read with the
Lxx. for 117 "IDD, Ὁ xiii. 22 is a conflation of Ps. Ixxxviii.

1 An exact citation, with one or two variants of the A type.

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 399

21+1]xxi. 20+1 Regn. ΧΙ]. 14+Isa. xliv. 28. C. xv. 16 ff,
which is introduced by the formula τούτῳ συμφωνοῦσιν οἱ λόγοι
τῶν προφητῶν, καθὼς γέγραπται, presents a remarkable instance
of free citation accompanied by conflation, which calls for
separate study.

Acts xv. 16 ff. Jer. xii. 15-++Amos ix. 11 f.
μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἐκβαλεῖν με αὐτοὺς
ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυεὶδ ἐπιστρέψω ... ἀναστήσω τὴν
τὴν πεπτωκυΐαν, καὶ τὰ κατε- σκηνὴν Δαυεὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν..
στραμμένα αὐτῆς ἀνοικοδομήσω καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀνα-
καὶ ἀνορθώσω αὐτήν, ὅπως ἂν στήσω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν
ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος,
ἀνθρώπων τὸν κύριον καὶ πάντα ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατά-
τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ ods ἐπικέκληται τὸ λοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ
ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, λέγει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ ovs ἐπι-
Κύριος 6 ποιῶν ταῦτα * * κέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽
4 eee αὐτούς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν
ταῦτα.
κατεστραμμενα] κατεσκαμ- κατεσκαμμενα] κατεστραμ-
μενα ACD μενα APO*

οπως- αν Α | ανθρωπων ]-Ἐ

τον κυριον A

The combination in this quotation of looseness with close
adherence to the LXxX. even where it is furthest from the Heb.
(e.g. in ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν κτλ.) is significant, especially when it is
remembered that the speaker is St James of Jerusalem.

(4) The Catholic Epistles use the Lxx. when they quote
the O.T. expressly, and with some exceptions keep fairly close
to the Alexandrian Greek. Thus. Jas. i. 8, 117, 23, iv. 6,
£ Pet 2474 1V;:18,\v- 5; are substantially. exact. .1)Pet.:il. 6
differs from the Lxx. of Isa. xxvill. 16. 1 Pet. ii. 10 ff., an
unacknowledged extract from Ps. xxxil. 12 ff., is adapted to
the context by a slight change in the construction, but other-
wise generally follows the Lxx.: θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾷν καὶ ἰδεῖν
ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς for θέλων ζ., ἀγαπῶν id. ny. ἀγαθάς is probably

1 On this reading see W. H.?, (Votes on select readings, p. 96.
2 Cf Me) x40; Ec, xviii. 20.

3 On the few variants in this passage see Hort, St Peter, p. 93.

400 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

a slip, shewing that the writer was quoting from memory. In
2 Pet. il. 22 (=Prov. xxvi. 11) κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον
ἐξέραμα is nearer to the Heb. than x. ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὸν
ἑαυτοῦ ἐμετόν, and appears to be an independent rendering.

(6) More than half of the direct quotations from the O.T.
in the Epistles of St Paul are taken from the Lxx. without
material change (Rom. i. 17, ll. 24, i. 4, lv. 7f., 18, vu. 7,
Vili. 36; 1x: 712,13, 15,26, x. 6 τό; 18; τὸ; 20 fyxineee
Saf, xil. 20f., ΧΙ 9, XV. 3,9, 10,15, 12, 213 τ Coma eememe
16; :κ. 7». 26, XV. 325 2 Cor. ἵν. 13, V1» 2,. Ville, του eee
ΗΠ 6 τα 12) tw 27, ΝΕ r45 Ephi-iv.' 26; 2 Tim) ΕΝ
smaller proportion shew important variants (Rom. ll. 20= Gal.
li. 16 πᾶσα σάρξ for πᾶς ζῶν LXX.; 1X. 9 κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον
ἐλεύσομαι, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ vids for ἥξω... κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν
τοῦτον...καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σάρρα LXX.; ΙΧ. 17 εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά
σε for ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης, and δύναμιν for ἰσχύν LXX.';
ix. 27 ὃ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἴ., ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; xiv. 11 ζῶ ἐγώ for
κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ θεῷ for ὀμεῖται τὸν θεόν
LXx.; 1 Cor. 1. τὸ ἀθετήσω for κρύψω 1.ΧΧ.; Gal. πὶ. 8 πάντα
τὰ ἔθνη for “πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς LXX.; ill. 13 ἐπικατάρατος
(cf. ν. 20) for κεκαταραμένος 1ΧΧ.; Eph. iv. 8 ἔδωκεν δόματα
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις for ἔλαβες δ. ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ" LXX.; iv. 25 μετὰ τοῦ
πλησίον for πρὸς τὸν πλ. LXX.; V. 31 ἀντὶ τούτου for ἕνεκεν τ.;
om. αὐτοῦ 1°, 29; cf. Mt. xix. 5 f, ΜΟΡ ΚΗ ΕΝ eon
μακροχρόνιος for κ. ἵνα μακροχρ. γένῃ).

In other passages St Paul departs still further from the
LXxX., quoting freely, or paraphrasing, or fusing two distinct
passages into a single citation, or occasionally deserting the
Alexandrian version altogether. Examples of loose quotations
or of paraphrases will be found in Rom. ix. 27, xi. 3, 4, 1 Cor.
xv. 45, Gal. iv. 30; conflation occurs in Rom. iii. το ΕΝ ix.
220m, peor; 1 Cor. xis 4, saxon lion

1 BA reads δύναμιν. 2 avos ΒΆΝ 8,
3 On this passage, see above, p. 251 f.

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 401

The following instances will shew how far reconstruction is

carried in cases of conflation.

Rom. ix. 33 ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν
Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ
πέτραν σκανδάλου" καὶ ὁ πισ-
τεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυν-

θήσεται.

Rom. xi. ὃ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ
θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, ὀφϑαλ-
μοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα
τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν, ἕως τῆς σήμερον

ἡμέρας.

Ι Cor. li. 9 ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ
εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ
ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ
> , σ΄“ «ς ’, e \ a
ἀνέβη, ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς
ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν ὅ.

αγαπωσιν]

ΘΕ Ἰ 1. 34, 8.

I Cor. xv. 54f. κατεπόθη ὁ
θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. ποῦ σου,
θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου,

, \ ,
θάνατε, TO KEVTPOV ;

υπομενουσιν

Isa. vill. 14 οὐχ ὡς λίθου
προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε
οὐδὲ @s πέτρας πτώματι.
XXVill. 16 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβάλλω εἰς
τὰ θεμέλια Σειὼν λίθον πολυ-
τελῆ, ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον,
ἔντιμον...καὶ ὁ πιστεύων οὐ μὴ
καταισχυνθῇ.

Isa. ΧΧΙΧ. 10 πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς
Κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως.
Deut. xxix. 4 καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν
Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν καρδίαν
εἰδέναι - καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς [τοῦ]
βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἕως
τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.

Isa. lxiv. 3 οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον
θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ, καὶ τὰ ἔργα
σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομέ-
νουσιν ἔλεον. ἶχν. 17 οὐδ᾽ οὐ
μὴ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ καρδίαν.

Isa. xxv. 8 κατέπιεν o
θάνατος ἰσχύσας. Hos. xiil.
14 ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ
τὸ κέντρον σου, ἅδη;

In some cases a wide departure from the 1,ΧΧ. is probably to
be explained by the supposition that the Apostle quotes from

Memory; €.g.:

Rom. xi. 2 ff.
οὐκ οἴδατε ἐν ᾿Ηλείᾳ τί λέγει
ἡ γραφή.. «Κύριε, τοὺς προφή-
τας σου ἀπέκτειναν, τὰ θυσια-
στήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, κἀγὼ
εξ , , A ~
ὑπελείφθην μόνος, καὶ ζητοῦσιν
\ ,ὔ > A , ,
τὴν ψυχήν pov. ἀλλὰ Ti λέγει
αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέ-
λιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους
ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν
γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ.

1 Aq. καὶ εἰς στερεὸν σκανδάλου.

3 On this passage see Resch, Agrapha, p. 154 ff.

Ss. S.

3 Regn. xix. 14 ff.

καὶ εἶπεν Ἠλειού... τὰ Ov-
σιαστήριά σου καθεῖλαν καὶ
τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν
οο «καὶ ὑπολέλιμμαι ἐγὼ μονώ-
τατος καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν
μου...καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς
αὐτόν...καταλείψεις ἐν Ἰσραὴλ
ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα
γόνατα ἃ οὐκ ὥκλασαν γόνυ τῷ
Βάαλ.

= ΟὟ 1 Pet, 11:.5. (Hort).
4 So Theodotion.

26

402 Quotations from the 7,.Χ Δ΄. in the New Testament.

The following quotation also is probably from memory}, but
the Apostle’s knowledge of the original has enabled him to
improve upon the faulty rendering of the LXx.

ΕΘ ΟΣ ΣΙ ΟΝ Isa. ΧΡ 11 f.
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, διὰ
Ἔν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χεί- γλώσσης ἑτέρας: ὅτι λαλήσου-
λεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ σιν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ... καὶ οὐκ
τούτῳ, καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὕτως εἰσ- ἠθέλησαν ἀ ἀκούειν.

ακούσονταί μου, λέγει Κύριος.

Jerome, quoting these words from St Paul, rightly adds,
“Quod mihi videtur iuxta Hebraicum de praesenti sumptum
capitulo.” Aquila’s rendering is remarkably similar, ὅτι ἐν ἑτερο-
γλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέροις λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ. Theodo-
tion unfortunately is wanting.

(7) The Ep. to the Hebrews is in great part a catena
of quotations from the Lxx. ‘The text of the quotations
agrees in the main with some form of the present text of the
Lxx.?” A considerable number of the passages are cited
exactly, or with only slight variation (i. 5, 8f., 13; ἢ, 6 ff,
135 τύ 4, ‘Vv. 6} ‘vi 13 ἘΠ Vill. 5, χρυ, 18,21; Xikepa ΟΝ
The writer usually follows the Lxx. even when they differ
materially from the Heb. (vii. 8 ff.’, x. 5 ff., σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω
μοι, 37 ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, Xi. 21 ῥάβδου, xii. 5 μαστιγοῖ). But
he sometimes deserts both version and original, substituting a
free paraphrase, or apparently citing from memory (1. 6, ix. 20
ἐνετείλατο, X. 30°, ΧΙ]. 19 f., 26). Some of his readings are
interesting: in 1. 7 we have πυρὸς φλόγα for πῦρ φλέγον“; in
1. 12 ws ἱματιον seems to be a doublet of ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον.
Notice also il. 12 ἀπαγγελῶ for διηγήσομαι (perhaps after Ps.
ΧΧΙ. 31 f.); ill. 9 ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ for ἐδοκίμασαν (EAoKIMacid for
edoximacé), and ill. 10 τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη" διὸ προσώχθισα for

1 As ἐν τῷ νόμῳ seems to indicate.

2 Westcott, Hebrews, p- 476.

8. Cf. p. 338.

4 Yet ‘‘he nowhere shews any immediate knowledge of the Hebrew
text”’ (Westcott, of. cit., p. 479).

5 Cf. Rom. xii. 19. Apparently a stock quotation, current in this form,

6 A* has πυρὸς pdéya (sic) in Ps. ciii. 4.

Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament. 403

τεσσ. ἔτη προσώχθ.; x. 6 εὐδόκησας for ἥτησας B, ἐζήτησας
ΜΑΒΤ; ΧΙ. 15 ἐνοχλῇ for ἐν χολῇ, a corruption supported
even in the Lxx. by B*AF*.

In the Epistles, as in the Gospels, the text of the Lxx.
which is employed inclines to cod. A rather than to cod. B.
But its agreement with the A text is not without exception;
and there are other elements in the problem which must not
be overlooked. As in the Gospels, again, we notice from time
to time a preference for Lucianic readings, or for the readings
of Theodotion. It has been reasonably conjectured that the
writers of the N.T. used a recension which was current in
Palestine, possibly also in Asia Minor, and which afterwards
supplied materials to Theodotion, and left traces in the
Antiochian Bible, and in the text represented by cod. A.
We shall revert to this subject in a later chapter; for the
present it is enough to notice the direction to which the
evidence of the N.T. seems to point.

4. We have dealt so far with direct quotations. But in
estimating the influence of the Lxx. upon the N.T. it must
not be forgotten that it contains almost innumerable references
of a less formal character. These are in many cases likely to
escape notice, and it is not the least of the debts which we
owe to the Westcott and Hort text, that attention is called to
them by the use of uncial type. They will be found chiefly
(a) in the words of our Lord (e.g. Mt. vii. 23=Le. xiii. 27,
ΠΕ Ὁ ΓΞ ey x1. ΕΣ ἢ xi.5— he: Wi 22) a. Sry 23'S
ee te eo a. 3o=' Moc. iv. 32> eva, Fo, xvi 27 = Eo.
ΟῚ εἰν ύτ EG, ΘΝ, xi? T= Be: xx: 9, ‘xxiv; 20°: =
pres eill.24. its =e. xxi \25 ff, xxiv 3o\— Le: xvi 27) xxvi.
b4—Me. xiv. 62=Lc. xxu. 69; Mc. tv. 20, vi. 23, 1x. 48, xvi.
19; Le. xii. 53, xxl. 22, 24, xxlll. 30, 46); (4) in the canticles
of Lc. i.—ii.; (c) in St Stephen’s speech, and, though more
sparsely, in the other speeches of the Acts; (4) in the Epistle

26—2

404 Quotations from the LX X. in the New Testament.

of St James’ and the First Epistle of St Peter; (e) in the
Epistles of St Paul; where, though not so numerous as the
citations, the allusions to the Lxx. are more widely distributed,
occurring in 1, 2 Thessalonians, Philippians and Colossians,
as well as in the great dogmatic Epistles; (/) in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (ii. 16, iii. 5 f., vi. 7f, τοῦ, vii. 1 ff., x. 20f,
ΧΙ; 12 f., 17 f., 28, ΧΙ]. 12—21, ΧΙ]. 11, 20); and especially (g)
in the Apocalypse, where references to the Greek Old Testa-
ment abound in every chapter.

5. This summary by no means represents the extent of
the influence exerted upon the N.T. by the Alexandrian
Version. The careful student of the Gospels and of St Paul
is met at every turn by words and phrases which cannot be
fully understood without reference to their earlier use in the
Greek Old Testament. Books which are not quoted in the
N.T., e.g. the non-canonical books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus
and Maccabees, find echoes there, and not a few of the great
theological words which meet us in the Apostolic writings
seem to have been prepared for their Christian connotation by
employment in the Alexandrian appendix to the Canon’*.
Not the Old Testament only, but the Alexandrian version of
the Old Testament, has left its mark on every part of the New
Testament, even in chapters and books where it is not directly
cited*. It is not too much to say that in its literary form
and expression the New Testament would have been a widely
different book had it been written by authors who knew the
Old Testament only in the original, or who knew it in a
Greek version other than that of the Lxx.

LITERATURE. F. Junius, Sacrorum Parallelorum libri tit.
(Heidelberg, 1588); J. Drusius, Parallela Sacra (Franeker,

1 See Mayor, St ¥ames, pp. Ixviii. ff., cxxxix.

2 The facts are collected by Dr Ryle in Smith’s D.B.? art. Apocrypha
(i. pp. 183, 185).

3 See below, c. iv.

Quotations from the 7, Χ Χ. in the New Testament. 405

1594); H. Hody, De Bzbl. textibus, p. 243 ff. (Oxford, 1705);
W. Surenhusius, ΠΡ 5D sive βίβλος καταλλαγῆς (Amsterdam,
1713); H. Owen, Modes of quotation used by the Evangelical
writers explained and vindicated (London, 1789); H. Gough,
NV. T. Quotations (London, 1855); A. Tholuck, Das A.T. in
N.T.—erste Betlage (Gotha, 1836); Ὁ. McC. Turpie, Zhe Old
Testament in the New (London, 1868); The New Testament
view of the Old (London, 1872); Kautzsch, De Veterzs Testa-
mentt locis a Paulo ap. allegatis (Leipzig, 1869); C. Taylor,
The Gospel tn the Law (Cambridge, 1869) ; _H. Monnet, Les
citations de Ζ᾽ Ancien Testament dans les Epitres de Saint
Paul (Lausanne, 1874); Bohl, Die ATlichen Citate im N.T.
(Vienna, 1878); C. H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament
(New York, 1884); E. Hatch, Essays zx Biblical Greek, p. 131 ff.
(Oxford, 1889); W. Staerk, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschrift fiir
Wissenschaftliche Theologte, xxxv.—xl.: A. Clemens, Der Ge-
brauch des A.T. in den NTlichen Schriften (Gitersloh, 1895);
H. Volkmar, Die ATlichen Citate bec Paulus (Freiburg in B.,
1895); J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 123 ff. (Oxford,
1899); W. Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo i. (Gottingen,
1899); Th. Zahn, Ezzlectung in das N.T., ii. p. 313 ff, and
elsewhere (see Sachregister s. ATliche Citate) (Leipzig, 1899);
E. Huthn, Die ATtichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im N.T.
(Tubingen, 1900). See also the commentaries on particular
books of the N.T., e.g. Bp Westcott, Hebrews, p. 469 ff.; J. B.
Mayor, S¢ James, p. \xviii. ff.; H. B. Swete, St Wark, p. Ixx. ff.

6 aN ok Ug oh EM Ne

QUOTATIONS FROM THE LXX. IN EARLY
CHRISTIAN WRITINGS.

‘‘THE quotations from the Lxx. in the Greek Fathers are
an almost unworked field’.” So wrote Dr Hatch in 1889, and
the remark is still true. Indeed, this field can hardly be
worked with satisfactory results until the editor has gone
before, or a competent collator has employed himself upon
the MSS. of the author whose quotations are to be examined.
The ‘Apostolic Fathers’ can already be used with confidence
in the editions of Lightfoot and Gebhardt-Harnack; the minor
Greek Apologists have been well edited in Zexte und Unter-
suchungen, and it may be hoped that the Berlin edition of the
earlier Greek Fathers® will eventually supply the investigator
with trustworthy materials for the Ante-Nicene period as a
whole. But for the present the evidence of many Ante-Nicene
and of nearly all later Greek Church-writers must be employed
with some reserve. In this chapter we shall limit ourselves to
the more representative Christian writers before Origen.

1. The earliest of non-canonical Christian wnitings, the
letter addressed c. A.D. 96 by the Church of Rome to the
Church of Corinth, abounds in quotations from the O.T.; and
more than half of these are given substantially in the words of
the Lxx. with or without variants.

1 Biblical Essays, p- 133-
2 Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten dret Jahr-

hunderte (Hinrichs, Leipzig). The volumes already published contain
part of Hippolytus and an instalment of Origen.

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 407

The following is a list of the exact or nearly exact quotations
of the Lxx. in Clem. R. ad Cor. Gen. i. 23 (vi. 3), iv. 3 ff. (iv.
1 ff.), xii. 1 ff. (x. 3), xiii. 14 ff. (x. 4f.), xv. 5 (x. 6), XVlll. 27 (xvil.
2); Exod. ii. 14 (iv. 9); Deut. xxxil, 8 f. (xxix. 2); Ps. il. 7 f.
(xxxvi. 4), xi. 5 f. (xv. 5), xvil. 26f. (xlvi. 2), xviii. 2 ff (xxvii. 7),
xxi. 7 ff. (xvi. 15 f.), xxii. I (liv. 3), xxx. 19 (xv. 5), sxx. τ (0.6),
Io (xxii. 8), xxxili. 12—20 (xxii. 1 ff.), xxxvi. 35 f. (xiv. 5), xlix. 16 ff.
ΠΥ (xvil,; ΣΙ Ixi. 1 5Ge 3); ere 36 (xv. 4),
Ixxxwilis 21 (xviil. I), ciit. 4 (xxxvis 3), Cix..1 (XxxVi. §), €xvul. 16
(ivi: 2), 10 & (xiviil. 2), Cxxxvill. 7 &.(xxviit. 3),'exl. 5/(Uvi 5); Prov.
i, 23 ff. (lvul. 3 ff.), 11. 21 f. (xiv. 4)». 110. 12. (vin 3 £5.34 (exx.2) ax
Saat 2): ob, iv, 16 ff. Gotxixs 3 fv. 17 1 (vi. 6 fan ΖΕ
(xxx. 4), xix. 26 (xxvi. 2); Sap. xil. 12 ἜΧΙ. 22 (xxvii. 3); Mal. 11. 1
(xxili. 5); Isa. i. 16 ff. (vill. 4), vi. 3 (xxxiv. 6), xill. 22 (xxill. 5),
Mala 13 (xv. 2), lili. 1 ff. (xvi. 3 ff.), Ix. 17 (xii. 5), Ixvi. 2 (xiii. 3);
ernie. 55 4. (xii 1) 5) Pzech:-xxxiil. 11(vi..2); Dan, viz 10, Uh:
(xxxiv. 6).

The variants are often of much interest, as shewing
affinities to certain types of Lxx. text. The following are
specially worthy of notice: Ps. xxi. 7 ἐξουθένημα, SAR; xxxi.
I f. ov, 8*BA (ag. 8° ©); Xxxill. 14 χείλη τοῦ, NAR; 16 om.
ort, NM@AR; xxxvi. 36 ἐξεέητησα (H.P. 99, 183); xlix. 21
avoue, 8*; 22 apm. ws λέων, R; 1. 17 τὸ στόμα... τὰ χείλη;
Ixxxvili. 21 ἐλέει, B¥; Prov. il. 21 χρηστοὶ ἔσονται οἰκήτορες γῆς,
ἄκακοι δὲ ὑπολειφθήσονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, cf. 8*°*A—a doublet want-
ing in B, whose reading ‘“‘appears to shew the hand of an
Alexandrian reviser” (Toy, cf. Lagarde); ili. 12 παιδεύει, ΝΑ;
XX. 21 (27) λύχνος, a reading found in A as a doublet (φώς...
ἢ λύχνος); Job iv. 21 ἐτελεύτησαν (for ἐξηράνθησαν), A; v. 17 ff.
is without the additions of the A text, and nearly as in B;
Isa. 1. 17 χήρᾳ, Β΄, ag. Β ΝΑ, δεῦτε καὶ διελεγχθ. (διᾶλεχθ.
Cle"), sAQ; 1π|. 5 ἀμαρτίας.. ἀνομίας ἴτ., sAQ; 6 ὑπὲρ τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν; 8 ἥκει for ἤχθη, Q™, 62, go al., ϑγτομεχ.ῖξ,
9 εὑρέθη δόλος, ΑΘ (see Lightfoot’s note); τῆς πληγῆς,
Β (A, ἀπὸ τ. πλ.); Ιχ. 17 ἄρχοντας] ἐπισκόπους | ἐπισκόπους] δια-
κόνους - Ezech. xxxill. 11 ἁμαρτωλοῦ, A (Β, ἀσεβοῦς) ; Dan. vil.
_ 10 ἐλειτούργουν, Th. (ΧΧ. ἐθεράπευον).

1 On Clement’s quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah, see Hatch,
Essays, pp. 175—9.

408 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

(a) A few readings imply correction from the Hebrew, or
rather perhaps a Greek text with affinities to the translations
of the second century; e.g. Ps. cxxxviiil. 8 ἐὰν καταστρώσω,
"A. Σ. ἐὰν στρώσω (LXX. ἐὰν καταβῶ); Isa. Ixvi. 2 πρᾷον, A. (LXX.
ταπεινόν). Others seem to be due to the imperfect memory
of the writer, who has not verified his quotations by referring
to his papyrus, e.g. Ps. Ixxxvill, 21 ἐν ἐλέει αἰωνίῳ: Mal. i. 1
ὁ aytos’ for ὁ ἄγγελος.

(2) A large proportion of Clement’s quotations are com-
posite”; sixteen passages may be thus described. Some of
these consist of citations accurately given from the Lxx. and
strung together, with or without a formula citandi (e.g. lvi.
3—14=Ps. cxvil. 18+ Prov. ili. 12+ Ps. cxl. 5 (φησῶν) + Job
V. 17—26 (καὶ πάλιν λέγει)). In other cases one of the cita-
tions is correctly given, and another quoted loosely (e.g. xiv.
4= Prov. ii. 21 f. (A) + Ps. xxxvi. 38, confused with 21>). But
more commonly in Clement’s conflate quotations, texts are
fused together without regard to verbal accuracy; cf. e.g. xxvi.
20 λέγει yap που Kai ἐξαναστήσεις με καὶ ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι"
καὶ ἐκοιμήθη καὶ ὑπνώσα- ἐξηγέρθην, ὅτι σὺ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἶ, where
fragments of Pss. xxvil. 7, ill. 5, xxil. 4 are blended into an
arabesque. Except in this class of quotations Clement is not
often guilty of citing loosely; see however xx. 7 (Job xxxviii.
11), xxviii. 3 (Ps.. cxxxvni.. 7), xxx. 3. (συ xv.) 5); ee
ΓΟ, δε 9}

(c) Special interest attaches to Clement’s quotations of
passages which are also quoted in the N.T. The following
are the most instructive instances: (1) Gen. xii. 1=Acts vil.
3 =Clem. x. 3: Clem. reads ἄπελθε for ἔξελθε (LXx. and Acts),
but rejects καὶ δεῦρο with AD against Acts and cod. E.

1 The Latin version supports the MSS. of the Greek text of Clement in
both cases, so that with our present knowledge we are not at liberty to
assume a transcriptional error.

β eyes πο ονὼ quotations from the LXX. see Hatch, of. cit.
p- 203 ff.

Quotations in early Christian Writings.

(2) Exod. ii.

14=Acts vil.

27)= Clem:

IV.

409

11: Clem. reads

κριτήν for apxovra— perhaps from confusion with Le. xi. 14”

(Lightfoot).

(2 Corux.oag)= Clem... 15

(3). Jer ax. 23} {1 Regn,

1 tO)=1 or, 4. ΔῈ
here the relation of Clement to

the Biblical texts is best shewn by juxtaposition:

jer.-2.6.

μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σο-
φὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ,
καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ
ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι
αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω
ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλού-
τῳ αὐτοῦ: ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν
τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ ὁ καυ-
χώμενος, συνίειν καὶ
γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι
Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεος
καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαι-
οσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

οὐ bs. ΣΙ,

9 = Matt.

I Regn. Zc.*
μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ φρό-
νιμὸος ἐν τῇ φρονήσει
oes ‘ P
αὐτοῦ, Kal μὴ καυχά-
σθω ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν τῇ
δυνάμει αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ
καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος
ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ"
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυ-
χάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος,
συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν
: ; : ᾿
τὸν κύριον, καὶ ποιεῖν
κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην
ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς.
ΘΟΕ Μ ΕΣ

XXVIII.

43 = Clem.

Clem. ἀπ.

μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σο-
φὸς ἐν τῇ σοφία αὐτοῦ,
μηδὲ ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ
ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, μηδὲ 6
πλούσιος ἐν τῷ π οὐ-
τῳ αὐτοῦ" ἀλλ᾽ ἢ +6
καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ
καυχάσθω, τοῦ ἐκζη-
τεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ποιεῖν
κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην.

for ΘΟΕ ing ΠΣ ΘΌΥΣ
x. 17: see Lightfoot’s
note ad Joc.

XV1. Clem.

ΓΒ

agrees with Lxx., Mt. substitutes πέποιθεν for ἤλπισεν, τὸν

θεόν for Κύριον, and εἰ for ὅτι.

(5)_.PS. xxXxI. τ ἢ Ἐξ 7 Pet.

lil. το ff.=Clem. xxii. 1 ff.; Clem. agrees with Lxx. against

St Peter, who changes the construction (6 6édwv..
(Ps: ex. 1— τ xxi 44 {Mec e.), Acts 24 4,

KTA.).

,
-TAaAVOaTW

Heb. i. 13 =Clem. xxxvi. 5: Clem. reads ὑποπόδιον with Le.,

Acts, Hebr.,

against ὑποκάτω Mt.,

Mc. (BD).
$2 Heb. χη 6=,Clem, lvi..4: see above,, p. 402.

(2) Prov, ul
(8) Prov.

ὁ Τρ 0, aoFet. v, 5—Clem. xxx. 2: Weas (ὃ 0. Jas.,

Pet.) against Kvpios Lxx.;
[On tags σεῖς, 1.5
again the passages must be printed in full:

M7 in Ὁ. 33.
XV. I:

1 See Hatch, of. εἶ, p.1t77 f.

M.T. 81, but with reference to
Mt. xv. 8, Me. vii. 6 = Clem.

410

Isa. Lc.

>

ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ dads
οὗτος ἐν τῷ στύματι

> a -
αὐτοῦ, Kal ἐν τοῖς χεί-
λεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν

ε 4 ‘ > ΄“

_ με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν

Mt., Mc. 27,2:

ς \ τ be
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος (οὗτος
ὁ λαὸς Me.) τοῖς χεί-
λεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ
/ > ~
καρδία αὐτῶν
ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ.

πόρρω |

Quotations in early Christian Writings.

Clem. Zc.
Otros ὁ λαὸς τοῖς
’ / ΄“ c ‘
χείλεσίν pe τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ
καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω
ἄπεστιν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ.

τοῖς χείλεσιν] τῷ στο-

> ~ Ι
πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. ματι Celem,

ἄπεστιν] ἀπέχει Colem,

ἀπέχει] Mc. ἀφέστη-

om ἐν T@ στόμ. αὐτοῦ | κεν 1) ἄπεστιν 1, 2ὉΡ8

καὶ ἐν SAQ.

Through constant citation, the context has taken more than
one type; Clement’s is close to that of the Evangelists,
but has not been borrowed from them in their present form,
as ἄπεστιν shews. (10) Isa. lili; 1—12=Clem. xvi. 3—14;
cf. Jo. x. 38 (Rom. x. 16), Mt. vill. 17, Acts viii. 32 f., 1 Pet.
i. 22, Mc. xv. 28.

The general result of this examination is to shew (a) that
Clement’s text of the Lxx. inclines in places to that which
appears in the N.T., and yet presents sufficient evidence of
independence; (4) that as between the texts of the Lxx.
represented by B and A, while often supporting A, it is less
constantly opposed to B than is the New Testament; and
(c) that it displays an occasional tendency to agree with
Theodotion and even with Aquila against the Lxx. It seems
in fact to be a more mixed text than that which was in the
hands of the Palestinian writers of the N.T. These conclu-
sions harmonise on the whole with what we know of the
circumstances under which Clement wrote. The early Roman
Church was largely composed of Greek-speaking Jews, the
freedmen of Roman families; and Clement himself, as Light-
foot has suggested’, was probably of Jewish descent and a
freedman or the son of a freedman of Flavius Clemens, the
cousin of Domitian. Under these circumstances it was natural
that the text of Clement’s copies of Old Testament books,

1 Clement of Rome, p. 61. Dr Nestle (2. f die NTliche Wissenschaft,

i. 2) points out the Semitic style which reveals itself in Clement, e.g. v. 6
ἑπτάκις, Xli. 5 γινώσκουσα γινώσκω.

~

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 411

while derived from Palestinian archetypes, should contain
readings brought to the capital by Jewish-Greek visitors from
other lands.

2. Whatever the history of the so-called Second Epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians, whether it is of Roman or of
Corinthian origin, like the genuine Epistle it makes extensive
use of the Greek Old Testament. The following quotations
ΠΕ Geni’ 1) 2) {χῖνε 2)°\ Mal? iv:-a" (xvb03) 3 “Tsar! sex.
Pas ἀχτῖν A. Cxvises pls Ὁ Gan. ΡΨ
απ οὐ Gee’ 3) lxvie τϑ σα £);°'24. ΟΣ xvul.'24); fer:
Vili (xiv, £); Ezechs*xiv.; 143, τ8.. 20 Ὁ 8): Fhe ΘΈΡΟΣ
these passages is cited very freely or rather summarised,
although introduced by the words λέγει ἡ γραφὴ ἐν τῷ ᾿Ἐζεκιήλ.
The writer follows Clement in the form of several of his
quotihonse(in ss (Clem! +1 Cor. ἌΣ Sav. |'2'= Clem. ὙΠ ΟΣ,
XXXill. 5; in xill. 2 he quotes Isa. lil. 5 as it is quoted by
Polycarp (see below)).

3. Another second century document, indisputably Roman,
the Shepherd of Hermas, contains no quotation from the Lxx.
But Ps. cill. 15 Lxx. has supplied the writer with a phrase in
Mand. xii. 3. 4, and Vis. iv. 2. 4 supplies evidence that he
knew and read a version of Daniel which was akin to Theodo-
tion’s. The passage runs: 6 κύριος ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον
αὐτοῦ τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν θηρίων ὄντα, οὗ τὸ ὄνομά ἐστιν teypit!, καὶ
ἐνέφραξεν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἵνα μή σε λυμάνῃι Compare Dan. vi.
22 (23) Th., 6 θεός μου ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνέ-
φραξεν τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων (LXX. σέσωκέ με 6 θεὸς ἀπὸ τῶν
λεόντων), καὶ οὐκ ἐλυμήναντό pe”.

4. The Old Testament is quoted in the Epistle of
Barnabas even more profusely than in the Epistle of Clement,

1 The acute conjecture of Dr J. Rendel Harris, who saw that the name,
which appears in the MSS. as Θεγρί or the like, must be an attempt to
reproduce the verb 13D (Dan. /. ¢.).

2 See above, p. 47, 0. 4.

412 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

but with less precision. The writer is fairly exact in well-
known contexts belonging to the Psalter or the Book of
Isaiah’, but elsewhere he appears to trust to memory, and not
to concern himself greatly about the words of his author.
Even when preceded by a formula citandi his citations often
wander far from the Lxx., although they are clearly based upon
it; e.g. Exod. xxxill. 1—3 15 quoted in Barn. vi. 8 after this
manner: ti λέγει ὃ ἄλλος προφήτης Μωυσῆς αὐτοῖς ; ᾿Ιδοὺ τάδε
λέγει Κύριος ὃ θεός Εἰσέλθατε εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθήν, ἣν ὦμοσεν
Κύριος τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ, καὶ κατακληρονομήσατε
αὐτήν, γῆν ῥεόυσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι. Similar liberties are taken
even when the writer mentions the book which he is quoting:
x. 2 Μωυσῆς...λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ Kai διαθήσομαι
πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον τὰ δικαιώματά μου-- ἃ sentence which,
though it has all the notes of a strict quotation, proves to
be a mere summary of Deut. iv. 1—23.

The following analysis of the quotations in Barnabas may be
found useful. (a) Exact or nearly exact: Gen. i. 28 (Barn. vi.

12), Exod. xx. 14 (xix. 4), Deut. x. 16 (1x.. 5),, Ps. 1.1, τα
xi. Of.), xvil. 45 (ix. 1), xxl. 17, 19 (vi. 6), cix. I (xii. 10), Cxvil. 12,
22 (vi. 4, 6), Prov. i. 17 (v. 4), Isa. i. 2, 10 ff. (11. 5, 1x. 3, xv. 8),
111: Of. (vi. 7), v. 21 (iv. II), xxvili. 16 (vi. 2), xxxii. 13:(1x4 1) ano
(xi. 4 £), xl 12 (xvi. 2); ΠῚ 6 ff. (xiv. 7), xlv. 27. (31 τ
(xiv. 8), lili. 5, 7 (v. 2), lxi. 1f. (xiv. 9), Ixvi. 1f. (xvi. 2). (6) Partly
exact, partly free: Gen. xxv. 21 ff. (xiii. 2), xlviii. g—11, 14 ff.
(xiii. 4 f.), Isa. xxviii. 16 (vi. 2), lviil. 4 ff. (11. 1 f.), Jer. ii. 12 f. (xi.
2): (¢) Free: 'Gen.'1..26 (vi. 12),'28 (vi. 18); Lev. xxiii 26 (vie
Deut. ix. 12 (iv. 8), x. τό (ix. 5), Ps. xxi. 21, cCxvili. 120, xxi. 17
(v. 13), Zech. xiii. 7 (v. 12), xvi. 1 f. (xi. 3), xl. 3 (ix. 3), Isa. 1. 6 fff
(v. 14, vi, 1), Ixv. 2 (xii. 4), Jer. iv. 3 (ix. 5), vil. 2 (ix. 2), 1x. 26
(ix. 5), Ezech. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26 (vi. 14). (4) Free, with fusion:
Gen. xvii. 23+xiv. 14 (ix. 8), Exod. xx. 8+Ps. xxili. 4 (xv. 1),
Exod. xxxii. 7+ Deut. ix. 12 (iv. 8), xxxiv. 28+xxxi. 18 (iv. 7), Ps.
ΧΙ]. 3 Ἔ ΧΧΙ. 23 (vi. 15), 1. 19+apocryphon (ii. 10), Jer. vil. 22f.+
Zech. vii. 10, vill. 17 (11. 7 ἢ). (δ). Free summary: Lev. xi., Deut.
xiv, (x. 1), Deut. iv. 10 ff. (x..2), Ezech. xlvii. (xi. 10)... (7) Vergy
loose citation: Gen. il. 2 (xv. 3), xvii. 5 (xili. 6), Exod. xvii. 14
(xii. 9), xxiv. 18+xxxi. 18 (xiv. 2), xxxiii. 1 ff. (vi. 8), Lev. xvi. 7 ff.

1 See Hatch, Zssays, p. 180 ff.

i

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 413

(vit. 6), Deut xxvil 1g! (xii: G);. ‘Ps. xxxitisin3 (ix: 2); Sir.<iv.. 31
(ix, 0), sane 17) (ἀν. 3), Datawii 7. fy 24 (iv. 4), ΤΙΣ, 24
(xvi. 6).

As the Epistle of Barnabas is not improbably a relic of
the earliest Alexandrian Christianity, it is important to
interrogate its witness to the text of the Lxx. This can
best be done, as we have seen, by examining its quotations
from the Psalms and Isaiah.

Ps. 1.1 ἐπὶ καθέδραν, BN (ag. ἐ. καθέδρᾳ AR), 5 οἱ ἀσεβεῖς,
ἁμαρτωλοί, Β (ag. ἀσεβεῖς, of du. A). XVil. 45 ὑπήκουσαν, δὲ] μου,
N°? RU (ag. pou 1° BN*A). xxl. 17 περιέσχεν; H.-P. 81, 206. cix. I
Κύριος, R | ὑποπόδιον (ag. ὑποκάτω, Mc. xii. 36, BD). Isa. ill. 9
ὅτι, AT; v. 21 ἑαυτῶν, AQ; xxvill. 16 ἐμβαλῶ, NAQ; xiii. 7 καὶ
ἐξαγαγεῖν | δεδεμένους] πεπεδημένους (as Justin, Dzal. 26, 65, 122).
xlix. 6 τέθεικα, NAQ* (ag. δέδωκα BQ™S), 7 λυτρωσάμενος (for puca-
μενος); lili. 5 ἀνομίας, ἁμαρτίας, NAQ, 7 τοῦ κείραντος αὐτὸν, δὲ“ "ἃ
AQ; lviil. 5 λέγει Κύριος, Q, 6 ἰδοὺ αὕτη ἡ νηστεία Hv; ΙΧ]. I τα-
πεινοῖς, N*; Ιὥχν]. 1 ἡ δὲ γῆ, NAQ | ἡ (for καὶ 2°), NA.

The leaning in Isaiah towards the text of Q, especially
when found in company with A or ΝΑ, is noteworthy, and it
is worth mentioning that in Zech. ΧΙ. 7, where the text
of Barnabas does not seem to have been influenced by the
Gospels, it agrees with A in adding τῆς ποίμνης. Occasionally
the text used by Barnabas seems to have been revised from
the Heb.; e.g. in Jer. 11. 12 ἐξέστη, ἔφριξεν become ἔκστηθι,
φριξάτω in accordance with M.T.; in Gen. ii. 2 Barnabas has
with M.T. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ where the Lxx. read é. τ. ἡ. TH

- 1
ΕΚΤΉ .

5. The Asiatic Christian writers of the second century,
Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, afford a striking
contrast to Clement of Rome and Barnabas of Alexandria, in
the rarity of their appeals to the Old Testament. (a) The
genuine Epistles of Ignatius quote it only twice with a formula
citandi (Prov. iii. 34=Eph. v. 3, xviii. 17 = Magn. xii. 1);

1 For further details see Hatch, of. czt. p. 180 ff.

414 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

two or three allusions (Ps. xxxll. 9= Eph. xv. 1, Isa. v. 26=
Smyrn. i. 2, lii. 5 =Trall. viii. 2) complete the instances of a
direct use of the Lxx. by this writer. When he quotes or
alludes, he is fairly close to the Lxx., unless we may except
the last instance, where δ᾽ ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά pov
βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν appears to be changed into οὐαὶ
δι᾿ οὗ ἐπὶ ματαιότητι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπί τινων βλασφημεῖται---ἃ
form which occurs also in Pseudo-Clement (2 Cor. xiii. 2) and
Polycarp (Phil. x. 3)'.. (4) The Bishop of Smyrna is no less
sparing in his references to the O.7T. than the Bishop of
Antioch, He quotes only Isa. lii. 5* (x. 3), Tob. iv. 1o= xii. g
(x. 2), Ps. iv. 5 (xii. 1)—the last-named passage perhaps indi-
rectly, from Eph. iv. 26—and Proy. 11]. 4 (vi. 1). In Phil. vi. 1
there is an allusion to Ezech. xxxiv. 4, from which it may be
gathered that Polycarp read there ἐπιστρέψατε, with cod. A.

6. Irenaeus may be taken next, for though he belonged
to the next generation and his literary activity was connected
with the West, his copies of the Old Testament writings were
doubtless of Asiatic pArvovenance. His method of quotation
however differs widely from that of the earlier writers. He
is a theologian and a controversialist, and he quotes the
Scriptures to refute an antagonist or to support the traditional
faith. Accordingly his citations are, with few exceptions,
either exact extracts, or but slightly abridged and adapted,
and he is almost wholly free from the habit of loose para-
phrase. How copiously he cites, especially in Adv. haereses
ill. iv., will appear from the following list”.

Gen. 1. 3 (iv. 32. 1), 5 (v. 23. 2), 26 (ill. 23. 2, Iv. 20.1, vais ee
li. If. (v. 28. 3), 5 (iii. 21. 10), 7 (li. 34. 4, iv. 20. I, V. 7--I, Ve 15.
2),(O (iv. 5.1), 16 f::(v, 23. 1);-23, (il, 22.4) Jil. 2 ff, (ea
(v. 17. 1), 9 (ν. 15. 4), 13 (iil. 23. 5), 14 (ili. 23. 3), 15 (iv. 40. 3,
Vv. 21..1),:19 (v. 16. 1); iv. 7 (iv. 18. 3), °9 (iii. 23.4), TO ἘΠῚ ΤῊΝ

1 On this quotation, however, see Nestle in Exp. Times, ix., p. 14f.
2 The chapters and sections are those of Stieren.

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 415

im, §4(v2 14.71) 5- xi! 14 £.,27° (v.92. 2)$ xiv. 22-(iv. 5, 5) 5.xvx18
(v. 32. 2); xvil. off. (iv. 16. 1); xix. 24 (ili. 6..1), 31 ff. (iv. 31. 1);
Xxvil. 27 ff. (v. 33. 3); xlix. Io ff. (iv. το. 2), 18 (111. το. 3). Exod.
1. 13 f. (iv. 30. 2); ili. of. (iv. 7. 4), 8, 14 (ill. 6. 2), 19 (iv. 29. 2);
wait. (ἢ. +3214) 3 xx: 3, 5/(1. 29. 4), 12 (ivi Οἱ 3)3 Xxiil. 20 (iv. 20. 5):
XxV. 40 (iv. 14. 3); Xxvi. 16 (il. 24. 3); ΧΧΧΙ. 13 (iv. 16. 1); xxxlil.
2 f. (iv. 15. 1), 20 (i. 19. 1), 21 ff. (iv. 20. Ὁ) xxxiv. 6f. (iv. 20. 8).
Num. xvi. 15 (iv. 26. 4); xviii. 20 (iv. 8. 3); xxiv. 17 (ili. 9. 2).
Deut. iv. 14 (iv. 16. 5), 19 (ill. 6. 5); v. 2f. (iv. 16. 2), 8 (ill. 6. 5),
22 ints. Πρ AY: Vi. Aff.\(AV. 2.2, Vi 22. ΤΊ ΣΎ Gwsi6.i gy2 x
EZ (iv.c 16.4), 16 (iv. 16.1); xvi. 5)f. (iv. “to. “1)y 16( five 18271) s
EVE E (iv. ΟΣ 2): xxvill.'66.(iv.. Τοῦ ξεν 18/'3)5 xxx 11g αν 16.
Apa xa. ? (iv, 2. 1); 4 (ili 18.-7), 6 (vs Tor. 2 3135/2), 8 fim. ora.
Oys xxx. +9 (iv, 8.°3)/* .* Regn’ ΧῊΣ af. (iv. 26. 4y; xy: 22 {{ν 5517.
Be a ΒΡ ΓΕ} 29. xi PY ve 274 1).173 Regn. vill. 27 (iv. 27. 1);
mie Fis ἔπ "9.2: ἘΠ) ΧΥΠ 55. 24, 264i. ὁ: 3) 5) KIX. TPR GY. 20.10).
Ps. 11, 8 (iv. 21. 3); iil. 6 (iv, av. F) svi. τ ἔτσι ΑἿΣ ΔΉ 2 (1
4 8 }5 Xi 3.119. Ἰὴς ἈΠ]: χα 14.2 5} ) {533 ΣΕΥ) ἘΣ: «5 {Π|.
34- 3); xxii. 4. (v. 31. 2); xxi. I (iv. 36. 6); χχχί. If. (ν. 17. 3);
Xxxll. 6 (i. 22. 1; 11]. 8. 2), 9 (il. 2. 5, 11]. 8. 2); xxxiil. 13 ff. (iv.
B71 Sy 30, 2) 17 (iv, 2624) 5) xuxiv,@ (IV. Tae ΚΖ): xxxEx.-7) (ive 17.
Pye rlig 3 i: {ἰν 235: τ). 7 (ie ΟΥ ΤῊ ΣΙ ΗΠ Azi(ive al 3), αν.
ΠΡ 5) 23 tw: 7.2) 5 ΧΠΧῚ Tin? 6.1), 3 £.(v. 1.8.:-2}} £2 ἀπ τε):
bees ats 07.2), 1 Ὁ τ (iverk7s 1 Ye. dvi: (A £2 (ie FOL ΣΝ:
Του τι 727 (iii. 22> 2); Iexvy 2<(i 9. 2), ον 33: 11) 3. Lexvin. {ἰ
(ito. 3) aikkixy FG FI. 5): ἸΣΧΣΙ 9 6f . Thane)
ἐσ ν {π|τ 1. Ixexy. 1 ὑν:..521..1}; 50.9.12 (ile 2%) 7) 5 πεῖν:
ΜῈ. (iil. 10. 4); xcv. 1 (iv. 9. I), 5 (iil. 6. 3); xcvii. 2 (ili. 10. 3);
XCvill. I (iv. 3 33 152): ον 201]: (iy. τ τ Gill, 30. (3%. ΕἸ ΕΙ
beso. 7, ii 0 1). CX. ΤΟ (Mi. 025. δὴ): ΟΧΙΠΙ, TI Gi Θ 7: 9): ἜΧΣΟΙ:
Wor (air. \G. 2)»: exlv; 6/ (1. 10.) ¥);-exbvill./ 5.f. 0 538: 2,.ν. 08),
Frovisadi2of7(v.. 20. Τὺ; 11.10.1. (ivip202 3); νυ 22 (Hi, 9343); νῆι.
eww 21.1.2 2 21 2% (iy. 20. 3): xix. 17 (iv. 18 6): χε ity,
24.15); "" Sap: Viz 19 Gv. 38. 3). HOS..1ve F Ge'19.'.1); xi ie’ (ait.
12, 13, iv. 20. 6). Amos i. 2 (ili. 20. 4); viii. of. (iv. 33. 12). Mic.
Vi, LO, (iti... 20.4)... Joel. i11,.:16.(iv,; 33.51). .Jon.4 9, πὸ ὅν i. 9...
{π|| 290. Be Habs 111: (i. 16: 7); 2 ΠῚ {Π| 20 A, 1ν 8. 53. 18). Zech.
Mi One (vay τὐ τ36,. 2); ΜΠ]. 164, αν τὴ): 3), 17: ν136..2} 7 5 11
ΕΟ {5 τ) ἜΝ |5: τ 10 f..(iv. 17. 5), il. 10 ἢν. 20, 2); iv. τ (iv.
Reet hoa. 2. (iVe2, ky 1V- 41. 2), 4. LO. 1), O fs (8. 4: 2y ἵν. 33.
Bay, Bs cave τ τ) τον. 17. 1, 1¥. aoen2. IV AES Spee tive ¥2) 1).
23 (iv. 2. 6); 11. 3f. (ν. 34. 4), 17 (iv. 33. 13); ν. 6 (ill. 17. 3), 12
(ii. 22. 2, iv. 2. 4); vi. 5 (iv. 20. 8), 11 f. (ν. 34. 2, V- 35. 1); Vil.
10 ff. (ill. 21. 4); vill. 3f. (iii. 16. 4, iv. 33. 11); 1x. 6 (ill. 16. 3, iv.
eae ΤΕ. ΧΙ κα Gib oe)” s),' 6 ff. (visa: 4) S$ 21. 2 (ii 20. '3)> ΣΙ. ὃ
iv. 35. 1); ZXV. & (V. 12. 1), 9 (GV, ΟΖ): xxvi. ΤΟΥ: 35. 1), 19 (iv.
Batt. Vo 1G. ΤΥ ΠΕ)» RV (eee τὴ: RXV. 16 (il. ΣΙ):

416 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

xxix. (13 (iV.12.4)5 χαρὰ (iv. 28: 3),°25 £)(v..34- 2) see ee
34. 4); xxxil. I (v. 34. 4): xxxiil. 20 (iil. 20. 4); xxxv. 3 f. (ill. 20.
3) ἦν. 33. 12); xl. -25,/17.(y. 20. Τὴ ΧΙ. (iv; 5-3) 5) aig Cpe
v. 12. 2), 10ff. (iv. 9. 1); xliil. 5 ff. (iv. 14. 1), 10 (iii. 6. 2, iv. 5. 1),
18.{iv. | 33-. 14) 23 (iv) 17-3), Xlv..7 (ive 40.1); xvi. © Goa
xiviit. 22.(i 16. 3)5 xlix. 16(v. 35,:2)5) li. 6 (iv. 3.1), Ind Gee
Τὺ 8 (ii. 28. 5); liv. 11 ff. (v. 34. 4); lvil. (iv. 34. 4), 16 (v. 12. 2);
Iviil. 6 ff. (iv. 17. 3), ΤΡ (vs 34.2)¢ Ix: 175 lx. 1 f6.Gu.-9. ees
(ii1. 20. 4); Ixve 1 (111. 6. .1),.17 ff. (iv. 26. 4; Vs .35-\2, 34.4) ae
35. 1), 22 (v. 15. 1), 25 (v. 33. 4), Ixvi. I (iv. 2. 5), 2 (iv. 17. 3), 3
(iv. 18. 3), 22 (v. 36. 1). Jer. 1. 5 (v. 15. 3); ii. 29 (iv. 37. 7); ἵν.
22 (iv. 2.1); v. 8 (iv. 41. 3, v. 7. 2); vi. 17 ff. (iv. 36. 2), 20 (iv. 17.
2); vii. 2f. (iv. 17. 2), 3 (iv. 36.2), 21 (iv. 17. 3), 25 (iv. 36. 5),
2015 Gy..36. 2); vill. as 30. 2); ix. 2 (iv. 25. 3), 24 f. (iv. 17. 3);
xX. II (iil. 6. 3); xi. 15 (iv. 17. 3); xiv. 9 (Iv. 33. 12), xvil. 9 (ill. 18 |
3, iv. 33. 11); xxii. 17 (iv. 18. 3, iii. 21.9); xxiii. 7f. (v. 34.1), 20 J
(iv. 26. 1), 23 (iv. 19. 2), 29 (v. 17. 4); xxxi. 10 ff. (v. 34. 3), 26 (iv.
51. ΤῊΣ Xxxv.-P5 (iv.-36. 5) 3) xxxvi. 39 f. (111: 21: οὐ; χανε τ
8. 21). Lam. iv. 20 (iil, 20. 3). Bar. iv. 36—v. fin. (v. 35. 1).
Ezech. τ τὸν: 20.510); xx. 412, (iv. 16. 1), 23 f.,(iv. 15. 8) πο
254. (v.. 34.1) xxxvi. 26 (iv. 23..4); xxxvil.1ff. (Vv. 15s/1) dene
34.a).° Dan. ib 234: 41 ff..(v.) 26, 1); 111: 2441. (v. 5.52) 3 ee
25. 33)» 10 (ii. 7. 4), 14 (iv. 20. 11), 20ff. (v. 25. 3), 27 (v. 34. 2);
vil. 11 f,, 23 ff. (v. 25. 4); ix. 7 (v. 25. 4); xil. 3f, 7 (iv. 26. 1), of.
Gi. 29.2), xu. 13°(v~ 34. 2). Sus. 52 f., 56 Gv. 26. 3.1. ΘΕ ΕΞ Ὶ
(το).

The Latin version, in which the greater part of these
quotations are clothed, appears to be exact where it can be
tested (cf. e.g. Isa. xlvi. 9 (i. 5. 4), xlvill. 22 (1. 16. 3), Dan.
ΧΙ]. g (i. 19. 2)). Assuming that it is so throughout, it is
obvious that in Irenaeus we have an important witness to the
Lxx. text of the second century. The following variants taken
from Books iili., iv., will shew the general tendencies of his
text:

Gen. xlix. 10 cuz repositum est (M™ ᾧ ἀπόκειται); 18 2m
salutem tuam sustinut te, Domine (cf. Foor mg ap. Field). Exod.
xxv. 40 facies omnia (F ποιήσεις πάντα, Luc.) secundum typum
eorum quae vidistt. Num. xxiv. 17 surget dux in Israel (cf. Heb.

bay, Σ. σκῆπτρον ; LXX. ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ΝΥ Deut. v. 22 (19) scrip-
sit ea in duabus tabulis lapideis (+Oivas B*A Luc.); xxxii. 6

1 Cf. Justin, Dial. 120.

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 417

et fectt te et creavit te (+kai ἔκτισέν σε AF, +kai ἔπλασέν σε
Luc.). 1 Regn. xv. 22 auditus bonus super sacrifictum (ἀγαθή
Luc.). Ps. xxxix. 7 aures autem perfecistt mihi (possibly a cor-
rection from the Gallican Psalter, but a few cursives read after
the Heb. aria or dra); xliv. 17 facts sunt tibi filit (BPART ἐγενή-
θησαν, ag. B*N eyevv.); xlix. 10 destiae terrae (ἀγροῦ S°*A, δρυμοῦ
ΒΝ), 15 22 die tribulationts tuae (θλίψεώς σου N°#AR); ci. 27
mutabis eos (ἀλλάξεις N*, ἑλίξεις B(NS?)AR(T)); cix. 1 suppeda-
neum pedum tuorum (ὑποπόδιον, not ὑποκάτω); CXill. II om. ἐν
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (with N°?AT). Mic. vil. 19 zpse (αὐτός AQ)...pro7z-
ctet (ἀπορρίψει A(Q), ἀποριφήσονται B), om. πάσας. Hab. iil. 3
pedes eius (οἱ πόδες AQ, κατὰ πόδας B). Isa. 1. 17 custificate
viduam (χήραν B*>NAT ag. χήρᾳ B*¥*Q*); xi. 4 arguet gloriosos
terrae (τοὺς ἐνδόξους NOS, ag. τ. ταπεινούς BAQ*); xxv. 9 om.
καὶ σώσει ἡμᾶς.. ὑπεμείναμεν αὐτῷ (with NAQ*, a hexaplaric addi-
tion, cf. Field, ad loc.); xxix. 13 populus hic labits me honorat
(om. with NAQ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ev); xlill. 23 71021 Servisti
mihi in sacrifictis=ov{ Se] ἐδούλευσάς μοι ev ταῖς θυσίαις [σου] NX?
(AY), fectsti zu (cf. A* ETTOIHCAEEN); lxv. I guz me non guaerunt
(ζητοῦσιν NAQ, ag. ἐπερωτῶσιν B). Jer. xlin. 31 cuferam super
605 (αὐτούς NAQ*, ag. αὐτόν BQ"), locutus sum super eos (ἐπ᾽
αὐτούς AQ, πρὸς ait. B®). Bar. v. 2 laetitzae (LXX. δικαιοσύνης).

A special interest attaches to Irenaeus’ extracts from Daniel}.
For the most part they follow the version of Theodotion quite
closely, even in the Greek additions. Two exceptions are
worth noting: Dan. vii. to is quoted by Irenaeus as it is by
Clement of Rome, in a form which agrees with neither Lxx.
nor Th.; Dan. xii. 9. is cited in the form ᾿Απότρεχε, Δανιήλ"
οὗτοι yap ot λόγοι ἐμπεφραγμένοι εἰσίν, ἕως οἱ συνιέντες συνιῶσι
καὶ ot λευκοὶ λευκανθῶσι, where ἀπότρεχε 15 a LXX. reading, whilst
ἐμπεφραγμένοι is from Th. and the rest of the sentence
seems to be suggested by his version (cf. ἕως...ἐκλευκανθῶσιν,
Th.). This quotation however is professedly taken from a
Valentinian source, which may account for its freedom.

7. Like Irenaeus, Justin quotes profusely, and his aim as
an apologist and a controversialist compels him to cite his
documents with some regard to verbal accuracy. For the
criticism of the Lxx. his writings afford even richer materials

1 See above, p. 47.

ΣΡ Ss; 27

418 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

than those of Irenaeus, since his subject leads him, especially
in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, to quote long extracts
without break or interpolated matter; more than once an
entire Psalm, or a passage exceeding in length one of our
modern chapters, is copied into his pages, presumably as it
stood in his text of the Greek Old Testament.

In the following list of Justin’s quotations from the LXx.
account has been taken only of his undoubted writings. A.=the
First Apology, D.=the Dialogue; the Second Apology contains
nothing to our purpose.

Gen. i. 1.ff. (4. 59, 64), 26 ff. (D. '62);: ti. 15 (D2: 102) ον τ
62); ix. 24—27 (D. 139); x1..6 (D. 102); xv:.6:(0; 92);
(D. 23); xviii. 2 ff (D. 126), 13 ff. (D. 56); xix. 1 ff. (D. 56), 23—

25 (D. 56), 27 f. (D. 56) ; xxvi. 4 (D. 120); xxviii. 1o—19 (D. 58,
120); xxxi. 1O—13 (D. 58); xxxil. 22—30 (D. 58, 126); xxxv. 6—
10 (D. 58); xlix. 8—12 (A. 32, 54; D. 52, 120). Exod. ii. 23 (DZ.
59); ill. 2—4 (D. 60), 3 ff. (A. 63); vi. 2—4 (D. 126); xvii. 16 (D.
A9); xx. 22 (D.. 75); xxii. “20 f.|(D.- 75) 3 xxxii./6: Digan
xxvi- 4of. (D. 16)... Num. xi..23 (D. 126); xxi. δὲ (45 ΘΟ ΕΞ
17 (A. 32, 2) 106). Deut. x. 16f. (D. 16); xxi. 23 ( Θ᾽ eee
26 (D. 95); xxxi. 2f. (D. 126), 16—18 (D. 74); xxxii. 7—9 (D.
131), 15 (D. 20), 16—23 (D. 119), 20 (D. 27, 123), 22 (A. 60), 43
(D. 130); xxxill. 13—17 (D. 91). Jos. v. 2 (D. 24); v. 13—vi. 2
(D. 62). 2 Regn. vii. 14—16 (D. 118). 3 Regn. xix. Io, 18 (D.
39). Ps. i. (A. 40); u. (4. 40); 1.7 ΕΠ 122); 15 ae
D. ΟΣ): viii. 3 (D. 114); xiv. 2 ff. (D. 27); xvii 4a er
xviil. 3 ff. (A. 40, D. 64); xxi. 1---24 (D. 18), 8F. ‘ate 38), 17 ff.
(45-35, 38, 22.907}; xxii. (D. 36); xxi. 7 (A. 51, D) ΘΕ. eee
(De 141) παν, ΞΘ. 3 xi. ΟΣ 56,64) 5 ΞΙΩ 6. Ὁ (2. 3.7:
xlix. (D. 22); Ixvii. 19 (D. 39); Ἰχχὶ.. I—19 (D. 34, 64, 121); Ixxi.
17—19 (D. 64) ; ixxsi. (72. 124); xcy.. 1 ff. (4: Ar), 5 ee 79), Io
(25°73) a (D. 37); xcvill. 1—7 (D. 64); -cix. Δ, 32); cix.
1ff. (A. 45, D. 56), 3 ff. (D. 63), 4 (DO. 118);, χα. 5. ΝΣ
exlvii. 1 f. (D. 85). Prov. viil. 21---29 (D. 129), 24—36 (D. 61).
Job i. 6 (D. 79). Hos. x. 6 (D. 103). Amos v. 18—vi. 7 (D. 22).
Mic. iv. 1—7 (D. 109); v. 2 (A. 34). Joel ii. 28f. (D. 87). Jon.
iv. 4ff. (D. 107). Zech. 11. 6 (A. 52), 11 (D. 119), Io—iil. 2 (D.
115) 5 ii. 1°ff..(D. 79)3 vic 12'(D. 121) 5 1x. 9 (A: 35, ΕΣ
Io—12 (A. 52), 12 (D. 121); xiil. 7 (D. 53). Mal. i. t1o—12 (De
28, 41). Isa. 1. 3 (A. 63), 7 (A. 47), 9 (A. 53, 22. 140), 11f. (Ae
37), 16 ff (A. 44, 61), 23 ff. (D. 27, 82); ii. 38 (A. 39), 5 ff. (Di
24, 135); ili. 9 (D. 136), 9—11 (D. 17), 9—15 (D. 133), 16 (VD. 27)
v. 18—25 (D. 17, 133), 20 (A. 49); vi. 10 (D. 12); vil. IO—I

Quotations in early 5 insu Writings. 419

(D. 42, 66), 14 (A. 33); vill. 4 (D. 77); ix. 6 (A. 35); xl. I—3 (2.
ΒΘ Ris. el πεζοὺς xvi. 18) 1(D., tna)5 xix. 24% (D. ΤΣ: Κανι:
21 (D. 24); xxix. 131. (D. 27, 32, 78, 123); xxx. 1--- (2). 79);
XXxlll. 12. 00 (D. 70); xxxv. 1—7 (D. 69), 4 ff. (A. 48); xxxix. 3
(D. 50); xl. 1—17 (D. 50); xii. 1—4 (D. 123, 135), 5—13 (D. 65),
ΙΝ rods), 120) sof. (DD; 123). slim τος (Dy, 322), 15D.
135}. mie 25 Ge 92); xlix..6:.(D. 121), & (72. 422) bh 4 (2)s-802),
Oi θὲ 11) 5. li τοῦ (D: 13), 13h 8) (Asso),
πὶ 15—lui. 1 (D. 118); lin. 1 ff. (D. 42); li. 8—12 (A. 51), 9
Pg) lav.) 64253) 5, lve. of. (δ. 12); 325, 2. τὴ vite τ Ἢ:
(A. 48), 1-4 (D. 16), 1 (D. 110), 2 (D. 97, 118), 5 £ (D. 27);
ἐπ ον 61,202. 0s )s20( A. 135 )y 64,04 37)y 13 fen (De 27) 9 de.
1o—lIxiii. 6 (D. 26); lxii. 12 (D. 119); Ixili. 15—I]xiv. 12 (D. 25);
Ixili. 17 (A. 52); Ixiv. 10 ff. (4. 47, 52); Ixv. 1 ff. (A. 49, D. 24),
I (D. 119), = (A. 35» 38, D. 97), 8 ff. (D. 136), g—I2 (D. 135);
τ τη (0. 8t),.1xvini (A- (37, D2. 22), 5-11, Wz, 85), 23 f(D.
πὸ ΚΠ (5 52.7) pA) ao fer: M12 OO DIA) αν LO) ΣΙΝΙΞΩ
eA) A Val 21 te Ee eo) 1X, 2641, (28), 26. (4. 8a). Sxxwill,
Rae an) 29CD as, 51. (2). αν sLbren: iva 2eq (4.155).
Ezech. iii. 17—19 (D. 82); xiv. 20 (D. 44, 140); xvi. 3 (D. 77);
ee LO - 200). 21.) 51. XXxViJt2., (2)...123)5 XXXVI. 7.f..(4...53).
Dan. vii. 9—28 (D. 31), 13 (A. 51).

From the circumstances of Justin’s life we are prepared to
find in his writings an eclectic text of the Lxx. Of Palestinian
birth but of Greek parentage, he seems to have divided his
maturer life between Ephesus and Rome; and each of these
associations may have supplied textual peculiarities. The
general result may be gathered from a few specimens of the
readings exhibited by Justin’s longer extracts from the O.T.

Gen. xxviil. Io—19. II ἔθηκε, DE 13 ἐστήρικτο ἐπ᾽
αὐτήν" ὁ δὲ εἶπεν | ὁ θεός Lig pr Κύριος | om ὁ θεός 29 14 γῆς,
DE | ἐπί 1°] εἰς | om ἐπί 2°, 3°, 4° (ἐπ᾽) λίβα] νότον 15 ἐν ὁδῷ
πάση ἣ ἄν 18 ὑπέθηκεν, st IQ om ἐκείνου | Οὐλαμμαούς,
DE* | τὸ ὄνομα. xxxil. 22—30. cA ἄγγελος μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, D
26 με εὐλογήσῃς, SEE, 28 om ἔτι, E | éora τὸ ὄνομά σου,
D | rov θεοῦ, E | δυνατός] + ἔσῃ, 251Ὲ 29 om ov, D
30 ἐσώθη] ἐχάρη (but ἐσώθη, infr. D. 126). Deut. xxxil. 16—23.
16 ἐξεπίκραναν, AF 17 om καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς | ἤδεισαν] οἴδασιν |
πρόσφατοι] pr καί, A 20 OM ἡμερῶν, AF 21 παρώξυναν]
παρώργισαν, A 22 καυθήσεται) pr καί | om κάτω. Deut.
XXXlll. I13—1I7. 13 ἐπ᾽] ἀπό (cf. ἀπ᾿ AF) | οὐρανῶν, δρόσων
ἀβύσσου 14 καθ᾽ ὥραν] καθαρῶν 15 ἀπό] pr καί, AF

27—2

420 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

ἀενάων pr καὶ ποταμῶν 16 καθ᾽ ὥραν] καρπῶν | τῇ βάτῳ | ἐπ᾽
ev, AF 17 τῆς γῆς» AF Jos. v. 13—Vvi. 2. 13 om kai 2° |
ἴδεν] ὁρᾷ | ἐναντίον] κατέναντι | OM καὶ ἡ ῥομφαία... αὐτοῦ | ὁ Ἰησοῦς
14 ὁ δέ] καί 15 τὸ ὑπόδημα ἐκ] τὰ ὑποδήματα. | ἐφ᾽ ᾧ | om νῦν
(so A, but adding ov) | ἅγιος] γῆ ἁγία. νὶ. 1 ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐξεπορ. | om
οὐδὲ εἰσεπορεύετο 2 om ἐγώ Ps. xxi. I—24. 4 τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
Sent 7 ἀνθρώπων, NRU ἐξουθένημα, NAR ὃ καὶ (NU)
ἐλάλησαν χείλεσιν II ἀπὸ γαστρός, XR? 12 βοηθῶν]-Ἐ μοι,
No? R* 14 ὁ ἁρπάζων) om 6, RU 15 ἐξεχύθη, NCAR
16 ὡσεὶ] os, SARU 17 πόδας] "μου, x-2?A RU Ps. xlix.
I om kai 22, X°*RT 3 ἐναντίον] ἐνώπιον, RT 4 διακρῖναι)
pr του; ΔῈ 6 ὁ θεός, NRT 7 διαμαρτυροῦμαι, Ro? Τ
10 δρυμοῦ] ἀγροῦ, δὰ “3 Α 16 exdinyn, ΘΑΤ 19 δολιότητας,
ieee ΚΑ 21 - τὰς ἁμαρτίας cov, BSNS? T 22 ov pn, ΑΕ Τ'
23 τοῦ θεοῦ] pov, NT. Prov. vill. 212—36. 24 Tas
πηγὰς προελθεῖν (but in LD. 129 mp. τ. πηγάς) 25 τῶν
βουνῶν (but 22. 129 omits art.) 26 ὁ θεός 28 καὶ ὡς (1°)]
ἡνίκα, ΝΑ 29 καὶ ὡς] ἡνίκα 35 ἡτοίμασται 36 ἀσεβοῦσιν
εἰς, δ 8Α, Amos v. 18--νἱ. 7. 18 τοῦ κυρίου 19 ἐὰν φύγῃ
ὅταν ἀκ ως ΑΙ ἄρκτος Ι ὁ ὄφις 20 αὕτη] αὐτοῖς 22 τὰ ὁλο-
καυτώματα, A | τὰς θυσίας | προσδέξομαι] + αὐτά, ΑΟΠΕῈ | σωτηρίου,

A 23 ἀπόστησον | ἦχον] πλῆθος ψαλμῶν: dag αι 25 om
μ΄ ἔτη | --λέγει Κύριος, AQ» 26 Ῥαφάν͵ | om αὐτῶν, AQ*. αὐτο
ἀπετρύγησαν]) pr of ὠνομασμένοι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀρχηγοῖς (a doublet for
the Greek which follows, ascribed to Symmachus by SH) | om
καί 2° | αὐτοί] ἑαυτοῖς, Q? | τοῦ “Iop.] om τοῦ 2 -τἰ εἰς Χαλάνην,
22, 36, 42; Heb. | διέλθατε] πορεύθητε | ‘Epa Ῥαββά] ᾿Αμὰθ τὴν
μξγῶχην (τὴν μεγ.: Symm. “20, 2061“ 9τ.31}} δι ἀλλοφύλων] pr τῶν]
πλείονι, A | Om. ἐστίν | spin ἀδαιὰ ὁρίων] ὁρ. ὑμῶν 3. κα-
κήν] πονηράν - καθεύδοντες) κοιμώμενοι | ἐρίφους] ἄρνας
5 ἑστῶτα, AQ 6 τὸν διυλισμένον (a doublet) | ev φιάλαις (Heb. )
7 δυναστῶν + τῶν ἀποικιζομένων | καὶ μεταστραφήσεται οἴκημα
κακουργῶν (a doublet of καὶ ἐξαρθ. κτλ.). Zach. 11. 10—ill. 2.
10 τέρπου] χαῖρε (cf. Eus. d.e., p. 252) | ὅτι, καὶ II καταφεύ-
ξονται] προστεθήσονται | canis πῆρ ἕντο Ι ἐπιγνώσῃ] γνώσονται |
Παντοκράτωρ] τῶν δυνάμεων ἀπέσταλκε 12 τῇ μερίδι] καὶ
τὴν μερίδα, NA, and, without καί, N*QT | αἱρετιεῖ] ἐκλέξεται “ 86
in textu ex alio videlicet interprete” (Field). 111. I om Κύριος,
Κυρίου | τὸν Ἰησοῦν) om τόν, AQT | ὁ διάβολος] om ὁ 2 om
ἐπιτίμησαι (15)...διάβολε | om ὡς (Heb.). Mal. i. 1o—12.
10 θέλημά μου | τὰς θυσίας ὑμῶν 1 ἀπό, AY | om καὶ 1°,
AQ | προσάγεται] προσφέρεται | διότι μέγα] ὅτι τιμᾶται (ὅτι μέγα
D. 41) | om Παντοκράτωρ. Isa. i. 16—20. 17 χήραν,
B® NAL 18 δεῦτε] + kai, NAQT | διαλεχθῶμεν * | χιόνα,
ἔρεον] ἔρεον, χιόνα 19 (A. 61 omits καὶ ἐὰν θέλητε. φάγεσθε.)

1 See above, p. 407.

Quotations in early Christian Writings.

Isa. lil.
A.D.
ὄψονται A.
4.ρ.
ἀνθρώπους,
ἡμῶν 3° A.
A., ®AQ

13—lill. 12.

AQ*)

Ix. Ὁ:
AQ*

6 om Κύριος A.

lii. 13 ἰδοὺ] ἴδε yap A.

15 θαυμασθήσονται D. i om ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ A.
lili. 2 ἐναντίον] ἐνώπιον 4. | ἐν. αὐτοῦ ὡς παιδ.
τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων] τοὺς ἀνθρώπους A. (cf. πάντας

A2I

14 πολλοὶ ἐπί σε
16 om

5 αὐτός | ἀνομίας, ἁμαρτίας A., XAQ | om

7 κείροντος A.D., B - αὐτόν
ὃ τοῦ λαοῦ μου] αὐτῶν A. | ἤχθη] ἥκει A.D.,
9 θανάτου]- αὐτοῦ A., B*>XNAQ
II αὐτῶν] ἡμῶν A.D.

Ὁ

10 τοῦ πόνου] om τοῦ A.
12 παρεδόθη] pr αὐτός A.
II ταῖς θυγατράσιν | σοὶ ὁ σωτήρ, NAQ
12 οὐ καταλελειμμένη, (S).
+ αὐτοῦ | Bia] pr ἀναβαίνων (cf. Symm. βαίνων, Heb.)

Isa. Ixii. 10
| om αὐτοῦ 19,

Ixtii. I ἐρύθημα, B | eran

3 +Anvov

ἐπάτησα μονώτατος, Symm., Heb. (a doublet of 72. καταπεπ.)]

om μου, ᾷ | εἰς γῆν, Be RAQ 5

ἐξ | om αὐτούς | om pov 19

οὐδείς, NAQ | ἀντελάβετο,

To shew Justin’s relation to the two recensions of Daniel,
it is necessary to place some verses side by side with the
corresponding contexts of the Lxx. and Theodotion’.

Justin, Dza/. 31.

ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου
θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ ὁ
παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκά-
θητοέχων περιβολὴν
ὡσεὶ χιόνα λευκήν, καὶ
τὸ τρίχωλλὰ τῆς κεφα-
λῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον
καθαρόν, ὁ θρόνος αὐτοῦ
ὡςεὶ φλὸξ πυρός, οἱ
τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέ-
γον. ποταμὸς πυρὸς
εἷλκεν ἐκπορεγόμενος
ἐκ προσώπου ΔΥτοῦ"
χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλει-
τούργουν αὐτῷ καὶ μύ-
ριαι μυριάδες, παρεισ-
τήκεισαν αὐτῷ" βίβλοι
ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ κριτή-
ριον ἐκάθισεν. ἐθεώ-
ρουν τότετὴν ΦωΝΗΝ

Dan. vil. 9—14, LXX.

> , -» isd
ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτε
θρύνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ

παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο
ἔχων περιβολὴν ὡσεὶ
χιόνα, καὶ τὸ τρίχωλλὰ
τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ
ἔριον λευκὸν καθαρόν
ὁ θρόνος ὡςεὶ φλὸξ
πυρός, τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ
πῦρ καιόμενον. ποτα-
μὸς πυρὸς ἕλκων, καὶ
ἐξεπορεύετο KATA
πρόσωπον = AYTOY
ποταμὸς πυρός" χίλιαι
χιλιάδες ἐθεράπευον
αὐτὸν καὶ μύριαι μυ-
ριάδες παρειστήκεισαν

αὐτῷ. καὶ κριτήριον
ἐκάθισε καὶ βίβλοι
> ,

ἠνεῴχθησαν. ἐθεώρουν

Ibid., Th.

ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου
θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ
παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκά-
θητο, καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα
αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιὼν λευκόν,
καὶ ἡ θρὶξ τῆς κεφαλῆς
αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον καθα-
pov: 6 θρόνος αὐτοῦ
φλὸξ πυρός, οἱ τροχοὶ
αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον. πο-
ταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν ἔμ-
προσθεν αὐτοῦ: χίλιαι
χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν

ae ς
αὐτῷ, καὶ μύριαι μυ-
ριάδες παριστήκεισαν
αὐτῷ" κριτήριον ἐκάθι-
σεν, καὶ βίβλοι ἠνεῴχ-
θησαν. ἐθεώρουν τότε
ἀπὸ φωνῆς τῶν λόγων
τῶν μεγάλων ὧν τὸ

1 Words common to Justin and Lxx. but not in Th. are printed in

small uncials;
thick cursives.
three texts.

those common to Justin and Th. but not to Lxx.,
Most of the remaining words are to be found in the

in

422 Quotations

Justin, Dzad/. 31.
τῶν μεγάλων λύγων ὧν
τὸ κέρας λαλεῖ, καὶ
ATTETYMTTANICOH τὸ
θηρίον, καὶ ἀπώλετο τὸ
σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐδόθη
εἰς καῦσιν πυρός- καὶ
τὰ λοιπὰ "θηρία pete-
στάθη τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν,
καὶ χρόνος ζωῆς Tots |
θηρίοις ἐδόθη € ἕως καιροῦ
καὶ χρόνου: ἐθεώρουν
ἐν “ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός,

καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφε-
λῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς
υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου épx6- |
μενος, καὶ ἦλθεν τὶ
τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμε-
ρῶν, καὶ TTAPHN €vo- |
πιον αὐτοῦ: καὶ οἷ"
TTAPECTHKOTEC προσ-᾿
ἤγαγον αὐτόν. καὶ
ἐλόθη ἀγτῴῷ ἐξογείὰ,
Kal τιλλὴ βὰδοιλική,
Kal TTANTA τὰ ἔθνη.
τῆς Γῆς κατὰ Γένη
Kal πδοὰ λόξὰ λὰ-,
Tpeyoyca: Kal ἡ €2-|
oycia ayToY ἐξογοίὰ,
ἀἰώνιοα ἥτις OY MA |
APOH, Kal H BaciAefa
AYTOY OY MH POapH. |

ὡς

in early Christian

Dan. vil. 9—14, LXX. |
τότε τὴν φωνὴν Tar |
λόγων τῶν μεγάλων ὧν
τὸ κέρας ἐλάλει: θεω-
ρῶν ἤμην, καὶ ATTETYM-
ττὰνίοθη τὸ θηρίον,
καὶ ἀπώλετο τὸ σῶμα
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐδόθη εἰς
καῦσιν πυρός. καὶ τοὺς
κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ ἀπέστησε
τῆς ἐξουσίας αὐτῶν, καὶ

XPONOC Cans ἐδόθη av-

Toi €ws XPONOY Kal

καιροῦ. ἐθεώρουν ἐν
ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός, καὶ
ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς
ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, καὶ
παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν
παρῆν" καὶ οἱ Tapec-
THKOTEC παρῆσαν av-

τῷ. “Καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῴ
ἐξουσία καὶ τιμὴ βα-

᾿σιλική, καὶ πάντα τὰ

ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη
καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ
λατρεύουσα. καὶ ἡ ἐξου-
σία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώ-
νιος ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ,
καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ

ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

Writings.

Ibid., Th.

κέρας ἐκεῖνο ἐλάλει, ews
ἀνῃρέθη τὸ θηρίον καὶ
ἀπώλετο, καὶ τὸ σῶμα
αὐτοῦ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν
πυρός. καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν
θηρίων ἡ ἀρχὴ μετεστά-
θη, καὶ “μακρύτης ζωῆς
ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἕως καιροῦ
καὶ καιροῦ. ἐθεώρουν
ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός,
καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφε-
λῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ws
υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμε-
νος, καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ
τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν -
καὶ προσήχθη αὐτῷ.
καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ 7) ἀρχὴ
καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασι-
λεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί,
φυλαί, καὶ γλῶσσαι
δουλεύουσιν αὐτῷ: ἡ
ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία
αἰώνιος ἥτις οὐ παρελεύ-
σεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία
αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσε-
ται.

The student will notice that Justin’s O.T. text is ἃ mixed one.
(2) In Genesis it contains many readings of D or DE where
those later uncials depart from A; (4) in Deuteronomy it oc-
casionally supports A or AF against B, and (c) in the Psalms
the group ART, with the concurrence sometimes of x*, some-
times of δὸς (4) in the Prophets it not seldom agrees with Q

(AQ, AQ).

In the Minor Prophets it is startling to find in

Justin more than one rendering which is attributed to Sym-

machus ;

and as it is in the highest degree improbable that

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 423

his text has been altered from the text of Symmachus, or at
a later time from a Hexaplaric copy of the Lxx., we are led
to the conclusion that these readings belong to an older
version or recension from which both Justin and Symmachus
drew. It is at least possible that many of the readings in
which Justin appears to stand alone may be attributable to the
same origin.

Justin’s Daniel text requires separate notice. It will be
seen to be in fundamental agreement with the Lxx., but not
without a fair number of Theodotion’s readings. ᾿Ἐλειτούργουν
meets us here, as in Clement of Rome, and the phrases τὰ
λοιπὰ θηρία μετεστάθη τῆς ἀρχῆς, μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν ἐρχόμενος,
ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ, προσήγαγον αὐτόν, are undoubtedly due to
Theodotion, or rather to the version on which he worked. On
the other hand ἔχων περιβολήν, τὸ τρίχωμα, πῦρ φλέγον, ἀπετυμ-
πανίσθη, χρόνος ζωῆς, οἱ παρεστηκότες, and the whole of v. 14
as clearly belong to the Chigi text. That this mixture is not
due to an eclectic taste or a fickle memory is clear from the
fact that the same text meets us in the Latin version of the
passage as given by Tertullian’.

In a few instances Justin shews a disposition to criticise
the Lxx. reading. E.g. in Ps. Ixxxi. (Ixxxii.) 7, he probably
proposed to read ws ἄνθρωπος (8783) for ὡς ἀνθρωποιἥ.
Similarly in Deut. xxxii. 8 he realises that the Lxx. has sub-
stituted ἀγγέλων θεοῦ for asaya? He maintains that in
Gen. xlix. τὸ the reading of the Lxx. is ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ᾧ ἀπόκειται,
though according to the Jewish interpreters of his time the
words should rather be rendered ἕως ἂν € τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ.
His text of the Lxx. contained some remarkable interpola-
tions ; thus he quotes Ps. xcv. (xcvi.) τοῦ in the form ὃ κύριος

1 Burkitt, Old Latin and [tala, p. 23 ff.

2 Dial. 124. In the editions ἄνθρωποι occurs twice, but the context
appears to shew that the singular should stand in the quotation.

= edie 131%.

424 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου᾽, and ascribes to Jeremiah the words
> , Ν ΄ὔ ε Ν > \ > Ἀ “ “ 5 “- A
ἐμνήσθη δὲ κύριος ὃ Geds ἀπὸ Ἰσραὴλ τῶν νεκρῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ
κεκοιμημένων εἰς γῆν χώματος, καὶ κατέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐαγγελί-
σασθαι αὐτοῖς τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ. He cites also some words
which appear to have found a place in his copy after 2 Esdr.
. ἐν > »Μ nw ~ ~ Ν , ε A ε ~
Vi. 21: καὶ εἶπεν Ἔσδρας τῷ λαῷ Τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα ὃ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν
καὶ ἡ καταφυγὴ ἡμῶν: καὶ ἐὰν διανοηθῆτε καὶ ἀναβῇ ὑμῶν
ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν ὅτι Μέλλομεν αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦν ἐν σημείῳ, καὶ
\ ΄- > ld ΕΣ 3 / tues ar > Ν 3 θῃ ε
μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλπίσωμεν (9 ἐλπίσητε) ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, οὐ μὴ ἐρημωθῇ ὃ
/ ct > LA 4 / ε Ἂς al ΄ 2X Ν
τόπος οὗτος εἰς ἅπαντα χρόνον, λέγει ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων - ἐὰν δὲ
μὴ πιστεύσητε αὐτῷ μηδὲ εἰσακούσητε τοῦ κηρύγματος αὐτοῦ,
ἔσεσθε ἐπίχαρμα τοῖς ἔθνεσι. These passages appear to be of
Christian origin, yet Justin is so sure of their genuineness that
he accuses the Jews of having removed them from their copies.

8. Hippolytus of Portus, as we learn from the _ in-
scription on the chair of his statue and from other ancient
sources, was the author of a large number of Biblical
commentaries*. These included works on the Hexaemeron
and its sequel (τὰ pera τὴν ἑξαήμερον); on Exodus, and
portions of Numbers and Samuel; on the Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs; on Zechariah, Isaiah, Jere-
miah, parts of Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel. Of these
exegetical works there remains only the commentary on Daniel’,

LAP. i. 41, Dial. 43. Cf. Tert. ¢. Marc. ii. 10, adv. Jud. 30: aaa
existing Greek MS. of the Psalter is known to contain the words except
cod. 156 (see p. 160), which gives them in the suspicious form ἀπὸ τῷ ξύλῳ.
A ligno is found in the Latin of R and in some other O.L. texts. Cf. the
hymn Vexilla regis: ‘“‘impleta sunt quae concinit | David fideli carmine
dicendo nationibus | Regnavit a ligno Deus”’ (for the literature see Julian,
Dict. of Hymnology, p. 1220).

* Dial. 72. The same Apocryphon is quoted by Irenaeus (iii. 20. 4, iv.
22. I, 33-1, 12, V- 31. 1) and attributed by him to Jeremiah (iv. 31. 1) or
to Isaiah (iii. 20. 4). Cf. Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 40, and the writer’s
Apostles’ Creed*, p. 38 f.

3 Dial. tb.

4 On his works see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, ii. pp. 388 ff., 419 ff.

5 Edited by G. W. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis in the new Berlin Corpus
(Hippolytus’ Werke, 1., Leipzig, 1897).

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 425

with fragments of most of the rest. The great treatise Adversus
omnes haereses yields but little in the way of Scriptural quo-
tations’, but the minor theological works collected by Lagarde’
supply a considerable number of fairly long extracts from the
Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Prophets. The text of the
Lxx. which is exhibited in these passages is often of much
interest, as a few specimens will shew.

Gen. i.7 ἐπάνω] ὑπεράνω 28 κατακυριεύσατε] κατακληρονομήσατε.
xlix. ὃ ff. (Lag. 5 (1), 102 (2) 8 αἰνεσάτωσαν (1 1) αἰνέσουσιν (2)
9 ἐκ βλαστοῦ μου υἱέ (2) 10 ᾧ ἀπόκειται (1), τὰ ἀπρκείμεμα αὐτῷ
(2) | adros]+ ἔσται (1) 12 χαροποί (cf. Field, ad loc.) | ! ὡς ἀπὸ
οἴνου: cf. ἀπὸ οἴνου, ADF. Exod. xx. 13 ff. οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύ-
σεις; οὐ κλέψεις. Deut. xxxil. 34 f. 34 παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ 35 ὅταν]
pr ἐν καιρῷ, AF. XXXIll. 22 ἐκπηδήσεται, B. Ruth ii. 9
ὑδρεύονται. A [4 ἐν ro ore, BPA. Ps. ἴχύη. ΤῊ. 4 ἐγγίζειν)
ἐλπίζειν (B*>NR) με (R) 5 ἥρπαζον 6 ἔγνως] οἶδας | ἀπε-
κρύβησαν, N°? ὃ ἐκάλυψαν ἐντροπῇ 10 κατέφαγε. Prov.
Mie 27 ἀποδήσει] ἀποδεσμεύει. ΠῚ 201: 29 ἀηδίαι, XA | ὍΡΟΣ
νοί, ΒΡ 30 ἐν οἴνῳ | ἰχνευόντων] κατασκοπούντων. Job i ΤΡ ΟΣ
πλανῆτις, ΝΑ. Αἴη.ν. 12 καταπατοῦντες, AQ*. Mic. ii. 7 f.
7 πορεύονται ὃ κατέναντι] κατὰ πρόσωπον | δοράν] δόξαν (sic).
ill. 5 ἤγειραν ἡ ἡγίασαν, Q™S, ν. 5 ἔσται αὕτη ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἰρήνη
ὅταν ὁ ᾿Ασσύριος (cf. AQ) ἐπέλθῃ. Mal. iv. 4 ἀποστέλλω] πέμ-
vo | πρίν] +i | ἡμέραν pr τήν, T 5 πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα | ἐλθὼν
πατάξω, ae isa: 3. 12 f., 130m. ev bis, xAQr 14 τῇ
χειρί] -Ἐ μου, AQ 16 Κύριος σαβαώθ] ἀδωναὶ Κύριος 17 πυρὶ
καιομένῳ] φλογί (cf. Symm.). xiv. 4 ff. τι εἰς ἅδου] εἰς γῆν |
κατακάλυμμα] κατάλειμμα 12 πρός] εἰς, ἢ 14 νεφελῶν, ΝΑΟΤ'
16 θαυμάσουσιν, NAOT 19 τεθνηκότων] πεπτωκότων 20
καθαρός] κομψός | χρόνον] χρόνιος 21 σφαγῆναι] εἰς σφαγήν.
xlv. 11-Ἐ καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων μου (cf. NAQ) 13 om βασιλέα,
xo>AO 14 ἐν σοὶ προσκυνήσουσιν. Ixvi. 2s τελευτήσει; BRQ
(ag. A, τελευτᾷ). Ezech. xxvill. 5 ἐμπορίᾳ] ἐμπειρίᾳ. Dan.
a 51 βασιλεία] + Ναβουχοδονοσόρ, A 5 ἐάν]- οὖν, AQ |
ovykpiow|+avrov, Q

The text of Hippolytus, it will be seen, like most of the
patristic texts, leans slightly to AF in the Pentateuch, x* or
x2 in the poetical books, and AQ in the Prophets. At the

1 The references in the Zuzdex locorum of Duncker and Schneidewin’s
edition (Gottingen, 1859) direct the reader for the most part to mere
allusions, or citations of only a few consecutive words.

2 In Aippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece (Leipzig, 1858).

426 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

same time it is full of surprises, and often stands quite alone
among existing witnesses,

g. Our last witness is Clement of Alexandria. Clement
had learnt the Christian faith during his early travels in Asia
Minor and Magna Graecia, and he may have received copies
of O.T. writings from his first Christian masters. Hence it
must not be too hastily assumed that the text of his O.T.
quotations is purely Alexandrian. On the other hand it is
reasonable to suppose that during the period of his literary
activity he was familiar with the Alexandrian text and used it
when he quoted from his MS. On the whole therefore we
may expect his quotations to be fairly representative of the
Biblical text current at Alexandria during the generation
preceding the compilation of the Hexapla.

Clement quotes both the Jewish and the Christian scrip-
tures profusely, but his extracts seldom extend beyond two or
three verses, and are often broken by comments or copied
with considerable freedom. His purpose was didactic and
not polemical; even in the λόγος προτρεπτικός he aims to
persuade rather than to compel assent, whilst the Paedagogus
and the S¢vomazezs are addressed exclusively to persons under
instruction, to whom the Scriptures were a familiar text-book.
Hence he is exact only when verbal precision is necessary ;
often it is sufficient for his purpose to work into his argument
a few words from a Scriptural context, giving the sense of the
rest in his own words. Still it is possible even in these broken
references to catch glimpses of the text which lay before him,
and in the dearth of early Christian literature emanating from
Alexandria, these are of no little value to the student of the
Greek Bible’. A generally full and accurate index of Clement’s

1 Clement’s text of the Gospels has been examined by Mr P. M. Barnard
(Biblical texts of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts,
Cambridge, 1899) with some interesting and important results. His text

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 427

Biblical quotations will be found in the edition of Potter; here
it must suffice to give some specimens of the text which
they exhibit in the Pentateuch, the poetical books, and the
Prophets.

(a) Gen. i. 26 (strom. V. 29) κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμετέραν
(elsewhere Cl. reads 6p. ἡμῶν, or omits the pronoun). XXXVII.
24 (strom. ν. 54) ὁ δὲ λάκκος κενός, DE. Exod. xx. 13 ff. (27ο-
trept. 108, strom. 11. 33) ov φονεύσεις ov μοιχεύσεις...οὐ es οὐ
ψευδομαρτυρήσεις, AF. αν ΠΥ tie (strom. 11. 46). 3 ἐν
αὐτῇ (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ B*, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς BAF) οὐ ποιήσετε (ποιηθήσεται B*)
4 πορεύεσθε A 5 ὁ ποιήσας αὐτά. Deut. xxxii. 23 ff. (Aaed. i.
68) 23 συντελέσει (συντελέσω AF, συνπολεμήσω, B) 24
ἐπαποστελῶ, A| rns γῆς, A(F) 41 ff. ἀνταποδώσω, AF 42+
καὶ ἡ μάχαιρά μου φάγεται κρέα ἀπὸ αἵματος τραυματιῶν, AF
55: σι τ 2, (serom. tv. T1T): 13 ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν, NAR
14 χείλη σου, ᾿ξ ΑΚ. χον. 5 (protrept. 62) δαιμονίων εἰσὶν εἴδωλα
(cit Eren.): 611. 14 (Paed. 1. 62) μνήσθητι, BN* Th. cxl. 5
( paed. 1. 79) ἐλεγχέτω pe δίκαιος καὶ παιδευσάτω. cl. 4 ὀργάνῳ,
BRT. Prov. 1. 25 ( paed. 1. 85) ὑ ὑπηκούετε, NA | οὐ προσείχετε,
NAC (ἠπειθήσατε, B). 111. 5 ff. (strom. il. 4). 6 ἐν πάσαις, A |
τὰς ὁδούς σου - ὁ δὲ ποῦς σου οὐ μὴ προσκόπτῃ (cf. xc: SH pr +)
12 παιδεύει, NA (ἐλέγχει, B). XXlll. 13 μὴ ἀπόσχου (ἀπόσχῃ
LXX.) νήπιον παιδεύων (A; παιδεύειν, B). Sir. 1. 18 ( paed. 1.
68) + φόβος yap Κυρίου ἀπωθεῖται ἁμαρτήματα (so far 248), ἄφηβος
δ᾽ ov δυνήσεται δικαιωθῆναι, O.L. ix. 9 ( paed. il. 54) μὴ συμβο-
λοκοπήσης] μὴ συμματακλιθῆς ἐ ἐπ᾽ ἀγκῶνα, O.L. XXXIV. 25 ( paed.
Π 21) ἀπώλεσεν ἢ ἠχρείωσε. ΧΧΧΥΙ. 6 (αθά. i. 42) ὡς φίλος μῶκος]
ὁ φιλήδονος καὶ μοῖχος (cf. ὡς φιλόμοιχος, 55, 254). XXXVIIL I
(paed. ii. 68) om. Tipais, 106, 296, O.L. XXxIx. 13 ( faed. ii. 76)
ἀγροῦ (ὑγροῦ SAC)] ὑδάτων. 18 ( paed. ii. 44) ὃς ἐλαττώσει]
ἐλάττωσις eis, Heb. (c) Am. iv. 13 (protrept. 79) ἰδοὺ ἐγώ,
B>AQ (om B*). Nah. iii. 4 ( faed. i. 81) ἐπίχαρις, BQ.
Mal. i. 10 ff. (strom. v. 137). 11 om. καί τὸ, AQ ! θυμίαμα]
θυσία | προσάγεται] προσφέρεται (cf. Justin). Isa. ix. 6 (paed.
i. 24) vids Kat ἐὰν NAOT | om ἐγενήθη, T | ἐκλήθη (καλεῖται,
ΒΝΩΡ, καλέσει, A ) | “Εθαυμαστὸς σύμβουλος (x *A) θεὸς δυναστὴς
πατὴρ αἰώνιος ἄρχων εἰρήνης (ἰδ 5.3Α). rs μεγάλη ἡ ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ] τῴ
πληθύνειν τὴν παιδείαν, ΤῊ. | ὅριον] πέρας, Th., Symm, xi. I ff.
( paed. i. 61). xl. 4 ἐλέγξει τοὺς “ἁμαρτωλοὺς τῆς γῆς (cf. Iren.).
Kix.) £3 (paed. Ἢ 76) 6 λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ
δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν epee ἐστὶν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ: μάτην δὲ σέβονταί pe διδάσ-

of the LXX. is not likely to be equally instructive, but it ought to reward
a patient investigator.

428 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

kovtes διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων (cf. Mt. xv., Mc. vii.).
Ixvi. 13 (aed. i. 21) ὑμᾶς παρακαλέσω, &. Jer. 1x. 23 f. ( paed.
1. 37): uw. 24 abbreviated as in 1 Cor. 1. 31. xiii. 24 ff. (strom.
Iv. 165 f.). 24 διέσπειρα, ΒΟ (διεφθειρα A) | ὑπό, NAQ (ἀπό,
B) | φερόμενα) πετώμενα 25 ἀπειθεῖν ὑμᾶς ἐμοί 27 μοιχεία
anarthr., Q | χρεμετισμός anarthr., B. = xxiii. 23 f. (protrept. 78).
24 εἰ ποιήσει τι ἄνθρωπος (εἰ ΠῚ τις, Β, εἰ κρ. ἄνθρωπος,
AQ). Bar. ill. 13 (paed. 1. 92) om χρόνον, Β. Thres, ΜΗ
(paed. i. 80) ἄρχοντα χωρῶν ἐγενήθη εἰς φόρους. Dan. ix. 24 ff.
(strom. 1. 125) as in Th. (B*), with the addition καὶ ἡμίν tis
ἑβδομάδος καταπαύσει θυμίαμα θυσίας καὶ πτερυγίου ἀφανισμοῦ ἕως
συντελείας καὶ σπουδῆς τάξιν ἀφανισμοῦ (cf. ΒΡΑΟ).

1o. This examination has been but partial, even within
the narrow field to which it was limited. It has dealt only
with direct quotations, and in the case of Hippolytus and
Clement of Alexandria, only with a few of these. Moreover,
the student who wishes to examine the whole of the evidence
must not limit himself to the few great writers who have been
named. Even if he adds the writings of Aristides, Tatian,
Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the anonymous Zeaching and
Epistle to Diognetus, there will still remain the fragments
collected in the Relliguiae Sacrae and by the researches of
Pitra, and the Pseudo-Clementine, apocryphal, and Gnostic
literature of the second century. Still more important help
may be obtained from Latin Christian writers who quote the
O.T. in the Old Latin version, e.g. Cyprian, Lucifer, Vigilius
of Thapsus, the Donatist Tyconius, and the author of the
Speculum’. This part of the evidence was collected for
Holmes and Parsons, and will be presented in a more perma-
nent form, if not at so much length, in the apparatus of the
larger Septuagint.

Much useful and interesting work might be done by follow-
ing the lines of Dr Hatch’s attempt to collect and compare
the early evidence in reference to particular texts and con-

1 See above, p. 97, and the art. Old Latin Versions in Hastings’ 2). 8,
iii. (already mentioned, p. 88).

Quotations tn early Christian Writings. 429

stantly recurring extracts from the Lxx.’ Perhaps however it
would be expedient to limit such an investigation to post-
apostolic Christian writers, and to carry it beyond Justin.
Moreover, Dr Hatch’s proposal to estimate the value of MSS.,
‘according as they do or do not agree with such early quo-
tations,” seems to be at least precarious. It is conceivable
and even probable that the peculiarities of early patristic
quotations may be partly due to corruption incident upon the
process of citing, whether from memory or from a MS.; and
for various other reasons the text of a fourth century MS. may
on the whole present a purer text than that which appears in
a second century writing. This point, however, must be re-
served for fuller consideration in a later chapter’.

τι. With Origen the science of Christian Biblical criticism
and hermeneutics may be said to have begun. In the Old
Testament his interest was peculiarly strong ; it supplied him
with the amplest opportunities of exercising his skill in allegorical
interpretation ; and his knowledge both of the original and of
the Greek versions prepared him to deal with the difficulties
of his text. Unhappily there is no class of his writings which
has suffered so severely. Of his great commentaries on the
Old Testament, only fragments have survived; and the
Homilies, with the exception of one on the Witch of Endor,
and nineteen on the book of Jeremiah, have reached us only
in the Latin translations of Rufinus and Jerome. But even
fragments and versions of Origen are precious, and the follow-
ing list of his O.T. remains* may be of service to the student
of the Lxx.
Genests. Fragments of Commentary (t. i., iii.), and notes

from catenae. Homilies (17) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Zvrodus.
Fragments of Commentary, and notes. Homilies (13) in Latin,

1 Essays, i. p. 129 ff. (On Early Quotations from the Septuagint.’’)
aSee Part 'til— c: "vi,
3 They are collected in Migne, P. G. xi.—xvii.

430 Quotations in early Christian Writings

tr. by Rufinus. JZevzticus. Fragments and notes from catenae.
Homilies (16) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Mumbers. Notes from
catenae. Homilies (28) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. Deuteronomy.
Notes from catenae, &c. /oshua. Fragments and notes from
catenae, &c. Homilies (26) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. /udges.
Notes from catenae. Homilies (g) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus.
Ruth. A note on Ruth i. 4. 1—4 Kingdoms. Homily ὑπὲρ
τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου. Fragments. Homily in Latin on 1 Regn.
i. ff. Psalms. Fragments of the Commentaries and Homilies;
notes from catenae. Homilies (9) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus [on
Pss. xxxvi.—xxxviii.]. Pvoverds. Fragments and notes, Greek
and Latin. Ecclesiastes. Notes from catenae. Canticles. Frag-
ments and notes. Homilies (2) in Latin, tr. by Jerome. Com-
mentary (prol., tt. i.—iv.) in Latin, tr. by Rufinus. od. Notes
from catenae. Fragment of a Homily, in Latin. The zz.
Prophets. Fragment on Hosea xii. (in Phzlocal. 8). Lsaiah.
Fragments (2) of the Commentaries, in Latin. Homilies (9)
in Latin, tr. by Jerome. /eremtah. Homilies (19) in Greek,
and notes from catenae. Homilies (2) in Latin, tr. by Jerome.
Lamentations. Notes from catenae. Ezekiel. Fragments, and
notes from catenae. Homilies (14) in Latin, tr. by Jerome.

12. It is impossible within the limits of an Introduction
to enumerate all the ecclesiastical writers who during the
golden age of patristic literature quoted or commented upon
the Greek Old Testament. But the student who is not a
specialist in this field may be glad to have before him the
names and dates of the principal Greek Fathers, with some
notice of such of their extant works as are concerned with
O.T. exegesis. The Roman numerals in brackets direct him
to the volumes of Migne’s fatrologia Graeca, in which the
authors are to be found; in the case of a few writings which
are not included in the Fatrologia and some others, references
are given to other editions.

Acacius of Caesarea, +366. Fragments in catenae.

Ammonius of Alexandria, c. 460. Fragments on Genesis and
Daniel. (lxxxv.)

Anastasius of Antioch, +598. (Ixxxix.)

Anastasius of Sinai, cent. vi.—vil. (1xxxix.)

Apollinarius of Laodicea (the younger), tc. 393. (xxxiii, cf.
Driaseke’s edition in Zexte u. Unters. vii.)

Quotations in early Christian Writings. 431

Apostolical Constitutions, cent. ili.—iv. (ed. Lagarde).

Asterius of Amasea, c. 400. (xl.)

Athanasius of Alexandria, +373. On the Psalms; Titles of the
Psalms, fragments in the catenae, (xxv.—xxviil.)

Basil of Caesarea, +379. Homilies on the Hexaemeron, the
Psalms and Isaiah i.—xvi. (xxix.—xxxil.)

Basil of Seleucia, c. 450, Homilies on the O.T. (Ixxxv.)

Cosmas Indicopleustes, c. 550. (Jxxxviii.)

Cyril of Alexandria, +444. Works on the Pentateuch (περὶ τῆς
ev πνεύματι kai ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως, and yAadupa), comm. on
Isaiah, comm. on the xii. Prophets; fragments on Kingdoms,
Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and the minor Prophets. (Ixviil.
—]xxvii.)

Cyril of Jerusalem, +386. (xxxiii.)

Didymus of Alexandria, +395. Fragments on the Psalms and
in the catenae. (xxxix.)

Diodorus of Tarsus, tc. 390. Fragments from the catenae.
(XxxIl1. )

Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, cent. v. _ (ill.—iv.)

Dorotheus the Archimandrite, cent. vi.—vil. (1xxxviil.)

Ephraem the Syrian, +373. Fragments of Commentaries on the
Pentateuch, the historical and the poetical books. (Rome,
hy 32. {2 )

Epiphanius of Salamis, +403. (xli.—xliii.)

Eusebius of Caesarea, + 339. Commentary on the Psalms; notes
on Isaiah ; fragments of other O.T. commentaries; books περὶ
τῶν TOTLK@Y ὀνομάτων τῶν ev τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ and περὶ τῆς τοῦ
βιβλίου τῶν προφητῶν ὀνομασίας.

Eusebius οὗ Emesa, +359. Fragments in the catenae of acomm.
on Genesis. (lxxxvi.)

Eustathius of Antioch, +337. On the Witch of Endor, ag.
Origen. (xviii.)

Evagrius of Pontus, +398. Fragments in catenae.

Gennadius of Constantinople, +471. Fragments on Genesis,
Exodus, the Psalms &c. (Ixxxv.)

Gregory of Nazianzus, +389. (xxxv.—xxxviil.)

Gregory of Neocaesarea, tc. 270. (x.)

Gregory of Nyssa, +395. (xliv.—xlvi.)

Hesychius of Jerusalem, tc. 438. (xciil.)

Isidore of Pelusium, fc. 450. (Ixxviii.)

John Chrysostom, +407. Homilies on 1 Regn., Psalms (iii.—
xll., xlvili.—xlix., cvili.—cxl.); a commentary on Isa. i.—viil.
11; various hands. (xlvii.—lxiv.)

John of Damascus, tc. 760. (xciv.—xcvi.)

Julianus of Halicarnassus, +536. Fragments in catenae.

Macarius Magnes, cent. iv. (ed. Blondel).

Maximus Confessor, t662. (xc.—xci.)

432 Quotations in early Christian Writings.

Methodius of Olympus, cent. ili.—iv. (xviii.)

Nilus of Sinai, tc. 430. (1xxix.)

Olympiodorus of Alexandria, tcent. vi. (xciil.)

Peter of Alexandria, 311. (xvili.)

Philo of Carpasia, c. 380. Commentary on Canticles. (xl.)

Photius of Constantinople, tc. 891. (ci.—civ.)

Polychronius of Apamea, +430. Fragments on the Pentateuch,
Job, Proverbs, Canticles, and Daniel; comm. on Ezekiel.

Procopius of Gaza, cent. vi. Commentaries on Genesis—Judges,
1 Regn.—4 Chr., Prov., Cant., Isaiah. (Ixxxvii.)

Severianus of Gabala, +c. 420. Fragments of commentaries in
the catenae. (Ixv.)

Severus of Antioch, tc. 539. Fragments in the catenae.

Theodore of Heraclea, tc. 355. Fragments of comm. on Isaiah.
(xviii. )

Theodore of Mopsuestia, t428. Fragments of commentaries on
Genesis (Syriac and Latin), the rest of the Pentateuch and
the historical books: comm. on the Psalms in Syriac and
large fragments in Greek: a commentary on the xii. Prophets.
(Ixvi.)

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, +c. 458. Eis τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας γραφῆς,
questions on the Pentateuch and historical books. Commen-
taries on the Psalms, Canticles, the xii. Prophets, Isaiah, Jere-
miah (including Baruch and Lam.), Ezekiel, Daniel. (lxxx.—
Ιχχχῖν.)

Titus of Bostra, tc. 370. (xviil.)

Victor of Antioch, cent. v.—vi. (?).

LITERATURE. T. Ittig, De dcbliothects et catenis patrum
(Leipzig, 1707). J. G. Walch, Bzbliotheca patristica, ed. J. T. L.
Danz (Jena, 1834). J. G. Dowling, Notitia Scriptorum ss.
Patrum (Oxford, 1839). J. Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologia u.
Patristik (Mainz, 1881). O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie (Freiburg
i. B., 1894). Fessler-Jungmann, /mstetutiones Patrologiae (1890).
H. Hody, De textibus Bibliorum, Ὁ. 277 ff. Schleusner, Opuscula
critica ad versionem Graecam V.T. pertinentia (Leipzig, 1812).
Credner, Bettrage zur Einlettung tn die biblischen Schriften,
vol. ii. (Halle, 1834). R. Gregory, Prolegomena (de scriptoribus
ecclestasticis, Ὁ. 1131 ff.). Scrivener-Miller, ii. p. 167 ff. Hatch,
Biblical Essays, p. 131 ff.

CHAPTER IV.

THE GREEK VERSIONS AS AIDS TO BIBLICAL STUDY.

I. No question can arise as to the greatness of the place
occupied by the Alexandrian Version in the religious life of
the first six centuries of its history. The Septuagint was the
Bible of the Hellenistic Jew, not only in Egypt and Palestine,
but throughout Western Asia and Europe. It created a
language of religion which lent itself readily to the service of
Christianity and became one of the most important allies of
the Gospel. It provided the Greek-speaking Church with an
authorised translation of the Old Testament, and when Christian
missions advanced beyond the limits of Hellenism, it served
as a basis for fresh translations into the vernacular’.

The Septuagint has long ceased to fulfil these or any
similar functions. In the West, after the fourth century, its
influence receded before the spread of the Latin Vulgate; in
the East, where it is still recited by the Orthodox Church in
the ecclesiastical offices, it lost much of its influence over
the thought and life of the people. On the other hand, this
most ancient of Biblical versions possesses a new and increas-
ing importance in the field of Biblical study. It is seen to
be valuable alike to the textual critic and to the expositor,
and its services are welcomed by students both of the Old
Testament and of the New.

1 See .Part. 176. Iv:

434 The Greek Versions as atds to Biblical Study.

A. As the oldest version of the Hebrew Bible, the Sep-
tuagint claims especial attention from Old Testament scholars.
It represents a text and, to some extent, an interpretation
earlier than any which can be obtained from other sources.

1. (a) The printed Hebrew Bibles give on the whole
the Massoretic text, i.e. a text which has passed through the
hands of the Massorets, a succession of Jewish scholars who
endeavoured to give permanence to the traditional type.

Massora (MDD, NDI, ¢raditzo) is already mentioned in the

saying of R. Akiba, Pzrge Aboth, 111. 20 mind 3D MND,
‘tradition is a fence to the Law’!; but the word is used there in refe-
rence to halachic rather than to textual tradition. It is probable,
however, that Akiba and his contemporaries were concerned with
the settling of the text which later generations protected by the
‘Massora’ technically so called. The work of the Massorets

(ΘΠ 2.3), who flourished from the sixth century to the tenth,
consisted chiefly in reducing to a system of rules the pronuncia-
tion of the text which had been fixed by their predecessors. The
Massora? embodies the readings which tradition substituted for
the written text ("7?, 4°02), the corrections known as the ΠΡ
ὩΣ ΞῚ 8, and observations on the text tending to stereotype its

interpretation in minute points. To the Massorets we also owe
the perfecting of the system of vowel-points and accents. The
labours of the Massorets culminated in the Western text of
R. Ben Asher (cent. x.), and that which appeared about the same
time in the East under the auspices of R. Ben Naphtali. The
former has been repeated with minor variations in all Western
MSS.

The attitude of Christian scholars towards the Jewish
traditional text has varied with the progress of Biblical learning.

1 See Schiirer, Z. 7. 11. i. p. 329n.; Dr Ὁ, Taylor, Sayings of the
Fewish Fathers, p. 54 f.

2 For the text see the great work of C. D. Ginsburg, Zhe Massorah,
compiled from MSS., alphabetically and lexically arranged, 3 vols. (London,
1880-5), or the Bible of S. Baer; and for the Massorets and their work,
cf. Buxtorf, Zzserias, Ginsburg’s /xtroduction (London, 1897), and his
edition of the J/assoreth ha-massoreth of Elias Levita, or the brief state-
ments in Buhl, Xaxon u. Text (p. 96 ff.), and in Urtext (p. 20 ff.).

3 On these see Dr W. E. Barnes in ¥. 7h. St., April rgoo.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 435

The question of its relation to the text presupposed by the
Septuagint was scarcely present to the minds of Christian
writers before the time of Origen’. Origen, when the problem
forced itself upon him, adopted, as we have seen’, a middle
course between the alternatives of rejecting the Lxx. and
refusing to accept the testimony of his Jewish teachers. Jerome
took a bolder line; his new Latin version was based on the
‘original Hebrew,’ and on textual questions he appealed with
confidence to the verdict of contemporary Jewish opinion:
prot. gal, “ quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim mutasse
me quidpiam de Hebraica veritate ...interroga quemlibet
Hebraeorum cui magis accommodare debeas fidem.” Like
Origen he indignantly, and on the whole doubtless with justice,
repudiated the charge which was laid by some Christians
against the Jews of having falsified their MSS.* But neither
Origen nor Jerome entertained a suspicion that the Jewish
official text had, whether by accident or design, departed from
the archetype.

Mediaeval Europe knew the Old Testament almost ex-
clusively through Jerome’s Latin, as the Ancient Church had
known it through the Lxx.* When at length the long reign of
the Vulgate in Western Europe was broken by the forces of the
Renaissance and the Reformation, the attention of scholars was
once more drawn to that which purported to be the original
text of the Old Testament. The printing of the Hebrew
text commenced among the Jews with the Psalter of 1477;
the editio princeps of the Hebrew Bible as a whole appeared in

1 See Ὁ. J. Elliott’s art. Hebrew Learning, in D. C. B. ii., esp. the
summary on p. 872 b.

2 Above, p. 60 ff.

3 See his comm. on Isaiah vi. 9 (Migne, P. 2. xxiv. gg).

* A few mediaeval scholars had access to the Hebrew, e.g. the English-
men Stephen Harding (+1134), Robert Grosseteste (+1253), Roger Bacon
(tc. 1292), the Spaniard Raymundus Martini (tc. 1286), and especially the
Norman Jew, Nicolaus de Lyra (¢1340). On Lyra see Siegfried in Merx,
Archiv, 1. p. 428, 11. p. 28.

28—2

436 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

1488, and three editions followed before the end of the fifteenth
century’. Meanwhile Christian scholars had once more begun
to learn the Hebrew language from Jewish teachers, and in
1506 the publication of John Reuchlin’s Rudiments placed the
elements of Hebrew learning within the reach of the theo-
logians of Europe. Under the circumstances it was not
strange that the earlier Reformers, who owed their Hebrew
Bible and their knowledge of the language to the Rabbis,
should have, like Jerome, regarded the traditional text as a
faithful reproduction of the inspired original. In the next
century a beginning was made in the criticism of the Hebrew
text by the Protestant divine Louis Cappelle (L. Cappellus,
+1658), and the Oratorian Jean Morin (J. Morinus, +1659),
who pressed the claims of the Lxx. and the Samaritan Penta-
teuch. A furious controversy ensued, in the course of which
the Swiss Reformed Churches committed themselves to an
absolute acceptance not only of the consonantal text, but of the
vowel points. This extreme position was occupied not only
by theologians, but by experts such as the two Buxtorfs of
Basle (71629, 1664), who maintained that the Massoretic text
in its present state had come down unchanged from the days
of Ezra and the ‘Great Synagogue.’

The views of Louis Cappelle were set forth in Avcanum punc-
tuationts revelatum, Amsterdam, 1624; Critica sacra, Paris,
1650; those of J. Morin in Evercitationes ecclestasticae tn utrum-
gue Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1631), and Εἰ χεγεζία-
tiones de hebraict graecique textus sincerttate (Paris, 1633). The
younger Buxtorf answered Cappelle in his treatises De punc-
torum origine (1648) and Anzicritica (1653): see Schnedemann,
Die Controverse des L. Cappellus mit den Buxtorfen (Leipzig, 1879),
Loisy, Histotre critique, p. 167 ff. The formula consensus eccle-
starum Helveticarum (1675) declared (cam. 11... ili.): “ Hebraicus
Veteris Testamenti codex quem ex traditione ecclesiae Iudaicae,
cui olim oracula Det commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque reti-

nemus, tum quoad consonas tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa
sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et tum quoad res tum quoad

1 See De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, p. 217 f.

The Greck Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 437

verba Oedrvevoros...ad cuius normam...universae quae extant
versiones,..exigendae et, sicubi deflectunt, revocandae sunt.
Eorum proinde sententiam probare neutiquam possumus, qui
lectionem quam Hebraicus codex exhibet humano tantum arbitrio
constitutam esse definiunt, quique lectionem Hebraicam quam
minus commodam iudicant configere eamque ex LXX. seniorum
aliorumque versionibus Graecis...emendare religioni neutiquam
ducunt?.”

Reference has been made to the place occupied by the
Samaritan Pentateuch in this controversy. A Samaritan
recension of the Law was known to Origen, who quoted it in
the Hexapla (Num. xill. 1 ἃ καὶ αὐτὰ ἐκ τοῦ τῶν Sapapetov
Ἔ βραικοῦ pereBadopev, XXi. 13 ἃ ἐν μόνοις τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν
εὕρομεν : see Field, Hex. 1. p. ΙΧΧΧΊΙ. f.), and Jerome (pro/. gal.
comm. in Gal. 111. 10); reference is made to it also by Eusebius
(Chron. 1. xvi. 7 ff.), and by so late a writer as Georgius
Syncellus (cent. viii.), who attaches a high value to its testimony
(Chronogr. p. 83 διαφωνοῦσι τὰ ᾿Ἐβραικὰ ἀντίγραφα πρὸς τὸ
Σαμαρειτῶν ἀρχαιότατον καὶ χαρακτῆρσι διαλλάττον᾽ ὃ καὶ ἀληθὲς
εἶναι καὶ πρῶτον ᾿Εβραῖοι καθομολογοῦσιν). In the seventeenth
century, after a long oblivion, this recension was recovered by
a traveller in the East and published in the Paris Polyglott of
1645. The rising school of textual criticism represented by
Morin at once recognised its importance as concurring with
the Septuagint in its witness against the originality of the
Massoretic text. Few questions, however, have been more
hotly discussed than the relation of the Samaritan to the
Alexandrian Pentateuch. Scholars such as Selden, Hottinger,
and Eichhorn contended that the Greek Pentateuch was based
upon Samaritan MSS. Samaritans were undoubtedly to be
found among the early Palestinian settlers in Egypt. Of the
first Ptolemy Josephus writes: πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους λαβὼν
ἀπὸ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐν Ταριζείν, κατῴκισεν ἅπαντας εἰς

Αἴγυπτον ἀγαγών. It is significant that Σαμάρεια occurs among

1 Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum (Leipzig, 1840), p- 731-

438 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

the names of villages in the Fayim, and a letter ascribed to
Hadrian, and certainly not earlier than his reign, mentions
Samaritans as resident at Alexandria. On the other hand the
traditional account of the origin of the Lxx. directly con-
tradicts this hypothesis, nor is it probable that the Jews of
Alexandria would have had recourse to the Samaritans for
MSS. of the Law, or that they would have accepted a version
which had originated in this manner. Moreover the agreement
of the Greek and Samaritan Pentateuchs is very far from
being complete. A careful analysis of the Samaritan text led
Gesenius to the conclusion, which is now generally accepted,
that the fact of the two Pentateuchs often making common
cause ayainst the printed Hebrew Bibles indicates a common
origin earlier than the fixing of the Massoretic text, whilst their
dissensions shew that the text of the Law existed in more
than one recension before it had been reduced to a rigid uni-
formity.

On the Samaritan Pentateuch the reader may consult J. Mo-
rinus, Evercttationes ecclestasticae in utrumgue Samaritanorum
Pentateuchum; L. Cappellus, Crztzca sacra, ili. c. 20; Walton,
prolegg. (ed. Wrangham, Camb. 1828), 11. p. 280ff.; R. Simon,
Flistoire critique du Vieux Testament, i. c. 12; Eichhorn, £za-
leitung, 11. § 383 ff.; Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine
indole et auctoritate comm. (Halle, 1815); 5. Kohn, De Penxta-
teucho Samaritano eiusque cum verstonibus antiguis nexu (Leip-
zig, 1865); Samarettikon τ. Septuaginia, in MGWS., 1893;
E. Deutsch, Samaritan Pentateuch, in Smith’s D. δ. iii. 1106 ff. ;
J. W. Nutt, Lrtroduction to Fragments of a Sam. Targum
(London, 1872).

The prevalent belief in the originality of the Massoretic
text appeared to receive confirmation from the researches of
Kennicott? and De Rossi*, which revealed an extraordinary
agreement in all existing MSS. of the Hebrew Bible. But as
no MS. of the Hebrew Bible has come down to us which is

1 Vetus 7. Hebraicum cum varits lectionibus (Oxford, 1776—8o).
2 Variae lectiones V. T. (Parma 1784—8) : Supplementum (1798).

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 439

earlier than the beginning of the tenth century’, this evidence
merely shews the complete success of the Massorets and the
Sopherim who preceded them in preserving the traditional text,
and the question remains to be answered at what period the
tradition was created. It may be traced in the fourth century,
when Jerome received substantially the same text from his
Jewish teachers in Palestine; and in the third, for Origen’s
Hebrew text did not differ materially from that of Jerome or
of the Massorets. We can go yet another step further back ;
the version of Aquila, of which considerable fragments have
now been recovered, reveals very few points in which the
consonantal text of the second century differed from that of
our printed Bibles*. Other witnesses can be produced to shew
that, even if Hebrew MSS. of a much earlier date had been
preserved, they would have thrown but little light on textual
questions®. On the whole, modern research has left no room
for doubting that the printed Hebrew Bible represents a
textus receptus which was already practically fixed before the
middle of the second century. But it is equally clear that no
official text held undisputed possession in the first century, or
was recognised by the writers of the New Testament. Thus
we are driven to the conclusion that the transition from a
fluctuating to a relatively fixed text took effect during the
interval between the Fall of Jerusalem and the completion of
Aquila’s version. The time was one of great activity in
Palestinian Jewish circles. In the last days of Jerusalem a
school had been founded at Jamnia (Jabneh, Yedma)*, near
the Philistine seaboard, by R. Jochanan ben Zaccai. To this

1 “The earliest MS. of which the age is certainly known bears date
aged. Arter to tie k.V. of the ΟΣ - p. 1x, 2).

2 Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Aguzla, p. 16 f.

3 Cf. 5. R. Driver, Samuel, p. xxxix.: “Quotations in the Mishnah and
Gemara exhibit no material variants...the Targums also pre-suppose a text
which deviates from (the M.T.) but slightly.”

4 Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 73 f.

440 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

centre the representatives of Judaism flocked after the destruc-
tion of the city, and here, until the fresh troubles of the war of
Bar-Cochba (a.D. 132—5), Biblical studies were prosecuted
with new ardour under a succession of eminent Rabbis. At
Jamnia about A.D. go a synod was held which discussed various
questions connected with the settlement of the Canon. At
Jamnia also traditionalism reached its zenith under the teaching
of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, R. Joshua ben Chananya, and their
more famous pupil R. Akiba ben Joseph, the author of the
dogma that every word, particle and letter in the Hebrew
Bible has a meaning, and serves some purpose which can be
expressed by hermeneutical methods. From this canon of
interpretation to the establishment of an official text is but a
single step; a book of which the very letters possess a divine
authority cannot be left to the unauthorised revision of scribes
or editors. Whether the result was reached by a selection of
approved readings, or by the suppression of MSS. which were
not in agreement with an official copy, or whether it was due
to an individual Rabbi or the work of a generation, is matter
of conjecture. But it seems to be clear that in one way or
another the age which followed the fall of Jerusalem wit-
nessed the creation of a standard text not materially different
from that which the Massorets stereotyped and which all MSS.
and editions have reproduced’.

(4) Itis the business of the textual critic to get behind
this official text, and to recover so far as he can the various
recensions which it has displaced. In this work he is aided
by the Ancient Versions, but especially by the Septuagint.
Of the Versions the Septuagint alone is actually earlier than
the fixing of the Hebrew text. In point of age, indeed, it
must yield to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the archetype of

1 See W. Robertson-Smith, 0.7. im Yewish Ch., p. 62 f.; A. F. Kirk-
patrick, Divine Library of the O.T., p. 63 ff.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 441

which may have been in the hands of the Samaritans in the
days of Nehemiah (c. B.c. 432)’; but the polemical bias of
that people, and the relatively late date of the MSS. on which
the printed text depends, detract largely from the value of its
evidence, which is moreover limited to the Torah.

Some of the difficulties which beset the use of the LXx. as
a guide to the criticism of the text have been stated already
when its character as a version was discussed*; others,
arising out of the present condition of the version, will be
noticed in the last chapter of this book. ‘‘The use of the
Ancient Versions (as Prof. Driver writes*) is not...always such a
simple matter as might be inferred....In the use of an Ancient
Version for the purposes of textual criticism, there are three
precautions which must always be observed: we must reason-
ably assure ourselves that we possess the Version itself in its
original integrity : we must eliminate such variants as have the
appearance of originating merely with the translator; the
remainder, which will be those that are due to a difference of
text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator, we must then
compare carefully, in the light of the considerations just stated,
with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on which
side the superiority lies.” ‘In dealing with the Lxx. (Prof.
Kirkpatrick reminds us) we have to remember...that the Lxx.
is not a homogeneous work, but differs very considerably in
its character in different books, if not in parts of books*.”
Moreover in the case of the Lxx. the task of the textual critic
is complicated by the existence of more than one distinct
recension of the Greek. He has before him in many contexts
a choice of readings which represent a plurality of Hebrew
archetypes’.

1 See Ryle, Canon, p. gt f.

SPL ch -V.,'p. 385.

3 Samuel, Ὁ. xxxix. f.

4 Expositor V. iii., ἢ. 273.
5 See H. P. Smith, Samzel, p. 397 f., and the remarks that follow.

442 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

The following list of passages in which the LxXx. reflects a
Hebrew text different from #1 will enable the student to prac-
tise himself in the critical use of the Version.

Gen. iv. 8 #1 does not give the words of Cain, though WN")
leads the reader to expect them. (ἃ supplies Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ
πεδίον (1]Wi3 133), and this is supported by Sam., Targ. Jer.,
Pesh., Vulg. xXxXxi.29 DD°28, G PAN (rod πατρός σου); so Sam.,
cf. v. 30. (ΧΙ, 56 O32 WW ΟΞ ΠΝ, (ἃ πάντας τοὺς σιτοβολῶνας
(732 Πῆγε, cf. Sam., 72. O72 We 52 ΓΝ). xlix. 10 (ἃ ἕως ἂν
ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ, perhaps reading 19Y (=i? WW) for fA
mY: but see Ball in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc., and cf. the
Greek variant ᾧ ἀπόκειται. Exod. v. 9 WY. WPM, (ἃ μεριμνά-
τωσαν..-μεριμνάτωσαν YO ...IYO). xiv. 25 1D, (ἃ καὶ συνέδησεν
(IDS). xxx. 6... ΠἼΞΞΠ D?,..ND5B0 ‘352. G omits the second
clause: so Sam. Lev. xiii. 31 Ἵν Wy, G θρὶξ ξανθίζουσα
(any Ὁ). Num. xxiv. 23 (ἃ prefixes καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν "Qy (SP
APY-NS); cf. vv. 20, 21. Deut. iv. 37 1°08 3y713, 1.6. Abraham’s
posterity (Driver, ad loc.); (ἃ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν per αὐτοὺς ὑμᾶς,
1.6. DIAN DYWI; so Sam. Josh. xv. 59 (ἃ - Θεκὼ... πόλεις
ἕνδεκα καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν. The omission of these names in fA is
doubtless due to homoioteleuton. Jud. xiv. 15 ‘~yawd O12.
(ἃ, as the context seems to require, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τετάρτῃ
(39177); but see Moore in Haupt, Sacred Books, ad loc. Xvi.
13 f. G supplies a long lacuna in #8 (καὶ ἐνκρούσης...τῆς κεφαλῆς
αὐτοῦ) caused by homoioteleuton; on the two Greek renderings
of the passage see Moore in Haupt, ad Joc. xix. 18 G εἰς τὸν
οἶκόν μου ἐγὼ πορεύομαι (fA son aN my nan). The final
letter of ‘M2 has probably been taken by 2 for an abbreviation
of 710". 1 Sam. i, 24 nwo DEA, G ev μόσχῳ τριετίζοντι,
dividing and pronouncing ΣΌΣ ἼΞΞ. ii. 33 G supplies 2703
(ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ) which fl seems to have lost. 111. 13 (ἃ ὅτι κακο-
λογοῦντες θεὸν υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ, reading ὈΠῸΝ for amd, iv. 1. The first

clause in f#1 is irrelevant in this place, and must either be con-
nected with iii. 21 or struck out altogether. In place of it G has

the appropriate introduction, καὶ ἐγενήθη... εἰς πόλεμον (DND3 9%

1 Lagarde (Symmicta i., p. 57) suggests a form NVIWN.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 443

Saw Sy ΠΌΠΟΙ» onwdp ivap ann). ν. 6. For ΠῚ Tw NMS
mia (ἃ has καὶ μέσον τῆς χώρας αὐτῆς ἀνεφύησαν μύες. Cf. vi. 4f.,
and see Driver and Budde (in Haupt’s Sacred Books) adloc. H. P.
Smith would strike out the reference to mice in both contexts.
vl. 19 ΦΌΣΣ ΤΟΣ WIND 3. (ἃ καὶ οὐκ ἡσμένισαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰεχονίου
ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν Βαιθσάμυς, where the first six words represent an

original of which ##1 preserves only three letters. Restoration is
complicated by the fact that dopevifew is dm. dey. in the LXx.

Klostermann suggests 17°33’ 2 ὙΠ NP. ix. 25f. OY II
3 5) 330-3y San, , more in harmony with the context, καὶ
Biter besa ay τῷ Σαοὺλ (Dinw> VIAN) ἐπὶ τῷ δώματι, καὶ ἐκοιμήθη
(BY). x. 21 (ἃ - καὶ προσάγουσιν τὴν φυλὴν Ματταρεὶ εἰς
ἄνδρας, a clause necessary to the sense. xii, 8 13 Ὁ ΟΡ ), (ὦ καὶ
ὑπόδημα (cf. Gen. xiv. 23, Am. ii. 6, viii. 6); ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ
(a WY p’>y3}). With G compare Sir. xlvi. 19 χρήματα καὶ ἕως
ὑποδημάτων... οὐκ εἴληφα, where for tod. the newly recovered

Hebrew has DOY) ‘a secret gift,’ leg. fort. ody “ἃ pair of sandals’;
see, however, Wisdom of Ben Stra, p. xvii. xii. 8 (ἃ supplies
kal ἐταπείνωσεν αὐτοὺς Αἴγυπτος, omitted by #1 through homoio-
teleuton. xiv. 18 DONA aS marian (ἃ προσάγαγε τὸ ἐφούδ.
“The Ephod, not the ark, was the organ of divination” (Driver).
xiv. 41 ἢ fl ΟΠ 135. Gls, supplying the lacuna, Ti ὅτι οὐκ
ἀπεκρίθης τῷ δούλῳ σου σήμερον; εἰ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἢ ἐν Ἰωναθὰν τῷ υἱῷ pov
ἡ ἀδικία; Κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ἰσραήλ, δὸς δήλους (DYN): καὶ εἰ τάδε εἴποις
Ἔν τῷ λαῷ ἡ ἀδικία, δὸς ὁσιότητα (Θ 3). Similarly in v. 42 (ἃ
preserves the words ὃν ἂν κατακληρώσηται...τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, which
fl has lost through homoioteleuton. See the note in Field,
Hexapla, i. p. 510. *X. 19 DIN J2NT OMS, G παρὰ τὸ ἐργὰβ
ἐκεῖνο -- 10 33987 OM, ‘beside yonder cairn.’ Similarly v. 41
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀργάβ = ΔΣ ΝΠ νυν. 2 Sam. iv. 6. For the somewhat
incoherent sentence in #4, G substitutes καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ θυρωρὸς τοῦ
οἴκου ἐκάθαιρεν πυρούς, καὶ ἐνύσταξεν καὶ éxdbevdev —words which
explain the incident that follows. xvii. 8 G ὃν τρόπον ἐπιστρέφει
ἡ νύμφη πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς: πλὴν ψυχὴν ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς σὺ ζητεῖς.
In the archetype of ##1 the eye of the scribe has passed from UN
to ΠΝ, and the sentence thus mutilated has been re-arranged.
xxiv. 6 ‘WIN DMNA PINON. No ‘land of Tahtim Hodshi’ is
known. G*< here preserves the true text, εἰς γῆν Χεττιεὶμ Καδής

444 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

-- ΠΡΡῚΡ pn γὴν by, ‘to the land of the Hittites, even to
Kadesh.’ For the last word Ewald, followed by H. P. Smith,
preferred ΓΙ, ‘to Hermon. 1 Kings xvii. 1 3 ΤΠ 3 Φ ἘΠ
ayba, (ἃ ὁ Gea Beitns ἐκ Θεσβὼν τῆς Γαλαάδ (ἃ ἸΞΦ ΤΟ). 2 Chron.
XXxXilii. 19 ‘Hn 34 by. (ἃ ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων τῶν ὁρώντων (DNMN).
Neh. ix. 17 oa. (ἃ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ (Ὡ Ν 22). Ps. xvi. (xv.) 2
ΤΩΝ sc. WEI, (ἃ εἶπα (ADS) is manifestly right, and has been
admitted into the text by the English Revisers. xxii. 16
(κι: 17) "Sd, Aq. ὡς λέων. (ἃ @pvéav (113 -Ξ 12). XXVii.
(xxvi.):13 sdb (so S#) is apparently read by G as 5, and then

connected with the previous verse. See Cheyne, Book of Psalms,
p. 379, and Abbott, Essays, p. 25. Wellhausen (Haupt, ad Joc.)
would retain 4 without the puncta extraordinaria. xiii. 5

(xli. 6) (ἃ +[kai] ὁ θεός μου, as Min v. 12. xlix. 11 (xlviii. 12)
Diy: wna ΞΡ. (ἃ οἱ τάφοι αὐτῶν οἰκίαι αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
lxix. 26 (xviii. 27) BD, (ἃ προσέθηκαν (Di). lxxii. (Ixxi.) 5
wow DY ANT". (ἃ καὶ συνπαραμενεῖ (PIN) τῷ ἡλίῳ. οἱ. (€.) 5
aN xd ins. (ἃ τούτῳ οὐ συνήσθιον bax xd AN). Prov. x. 10°

in fl is repeated from v. 8 which has displaced the true ending
of v. Io. restores the latter (ὁ δὲ ἐλέγχων μετὰ παρρησίας εἰρη-
vorrovet), and thus supplies the contrast to τοῦ which is required

to complete the couplet. Jer. vi. 29 3PAI xd Dy. (ἃ rovnpialc]
αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐτάκησαν] (PID3 xd DY). xi 15 Ὁ) 31. (ἃ μὴ εὐχαί...;
(Ὁ 7127); see however Streane, Double text, p. 133. xxiii. 33
Nu MINS. (ἃ ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ λῆμμα (dividing and pronouncing DAN
SwDn). Ezek. xlv. 20 wan nyawa. (ἃ ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ μηνί, μιᾷ
τοῦ μηνός (wand TOSI yaw). Mal. ii. 3YHO. («ἃ τὸν ὦμον
= yin.

(c) In dealing with such differences between the Greek
version and the traditional Hebrew text the student will not
start with the assumption that the version has preserved the
true reading. It may have been preserved by the official
Hebrew or its archetype, and lost in the MSS. which were
followed by the translators: or it may have been lost by both.
Nor will he assume that the Greek, when it differs from the

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 445

Hebrew, represents in all cases another Hebrew text; for the
difference may be due to the failure of the translators to under-
stand their Hebrew, or to interpret it aright. His first business
is to decide whether the Greek variant involves a different
Hebrew text, or is simply another expression for the text
which lies before him in the printed Hebrew Bible. If the
former of these alternatives is accepted, he has still to consider
whether the text represented by the Lxx. is preferable to that
of the Hebrew Bible and probably original. There is a
presumption in favour of readings in which G and #4 agree,
but, as we have said, not an absolute certainty that they are
correct, since they may both be affected by a deep-seated
corruption which goes back to the age of the Ptolemies.
When they differ, (ἃ will usually deserve to be preferred when
it (a) fills up a lacuna which can be traced to homoioteleuton
in the Hebrew, or (4) removes an apparent interpolation, or
(c) appears to represent a dona fide variant in the original,
which makes better sense than the existing text. Its claims in
these cases are strengthened if it has the support of other
early and probably independent witnesses such as the Samari-
tan Pentateuch and the Targum, or of Hebrew variants which
survive in existing MSS. of the Massoretic text, or in the Q’ri'.
For guidance as to the principles on which the Lxx. may be
employed in the criticism of the Hebrew Text the student may

consult Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Ubersetzung der Pro-
verbien, Ὁ. 1 ff.; Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuels,
p. 1 ff.; Robertson Smith, O. 7: zm the Fewtsh Church?, p. 76 f£.;
Driver, Votes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel,
p. xlviii. f.; H. P. Smith, Comm. on Samuel, pp. xxix. ff., 395 ff. ;
Toy, Comm. on Proverbs, p. xxxii.f. See also below, c. vi.

2. In the field of O.T. interpretation the witness of the
LXxX. must be received with even greater caution. It is evi-
dent that Greek-speaking Jews, whose knowledge of Hebrew

1 On the relation of the Lxx. to the Q’ri, see Frankel, Vorstudien,
p- 219 ff.

446 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

was probably acquired at Alexandria from teachers of very
moderate attajnments, possess no prescriptive right to act as
guides to the meaning of obscure Hebrew words or sentences.
Transliterations, doublets, confused and scarcely intelligible
renderings, reveal the fact that in difficult passages they were
often reduced to mere conjecture. But their guesses may at
times be right; and in much that seems to be guesswork they
may have been led by gleams of a true tradition. Thus it is
never safe to neglect their interpretation, even if in the harder
contexts it is seldom to be trusted. Indirectly at least much
may be learned from them; and their wildest exegesis belongs
to the history of hermeneutics, and has influenced thought
and language to a remarkable degree.

(a) The following specimens will serve to illustrate the exe-
gesis of the LXx. in the historical books.

Gen. iv. I ἐκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. iv. 7 οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς
προσενέγκῃς ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον. V1. 3 οὐ μὴ
καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ
εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας. XXx. II kal εἶπεν Λεία Ἔν τύχῃ" καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Tad. XxxVil. 3 ἐποίησεν δὲ αὐτῷ χιτῶνα ποικίλον
(cf. 2 Regn. xii. 18). xli. 43 ἐκήρυξεν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ κήρυξ.
xlvil. 31 προσεκύνησεν Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ.
xlvili. 14 ἐναλλὰξ [D ἐναλλάξας] τὰς χεῖρας. xlix. 6 ἐνευροκόπησαν
ταῦρον. 19 Γάδ, πειρατήριον πειρατεύσει αὐτόν" αὐτὸς δὲ πειρατεύσει
αὐτῶν κατὰ meade Exod. i. 16 kal ὦσιν πρὸς τῷ τίκτειν. 111. 14 ἐγώ
εἰμι ὁ ὧν. xvi. 15 εἶπαν ἕτερος τῷ ἑτέρῳ Τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; xVil. 15
ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Κύριος καταφυγή μου. ΧΧΙ. 6 πρὸς τὸ
κριτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ. ΧΧΧΙΪ. 32 καὶ νῦν εἰ μὲν ἀφεῖς αὐτοῖς τὴν. ἁμαρτίαν
αὐτῶν, ἄφες. Lev. xxlil. 3 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Zin ἑβδόμῃ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις
κλητὴ ἁγία τῷ κυρίῳ. Num. xxiii. 1o> ἀποθάνοι ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν
ψυχαῖς δικαίων, καὶ γένοιτο τὸ σπέρμα μου ὡς τὸ σπέρμα τούτων.
ΧΧΙΝ. 24 καὶ κακώσουσιν ᾿Εβραίους. Deut. xx. 19 μὴ ἄνθρωπος τὸ
ξύλον τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, εἰσελθεῖν...εἰς τὸν χάρακα; ΧΧΧΙΙ. ὃ ἐ ἔστησεν
ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. 15 ἀπελάκτισεν ὁ ἤγαπη-
μένος. Jos. ν. 2 ποίησον σεαυτῷ μαχαίρας πετρίνας ἐκ “Πέτρας
ἀκροτόμου. Jud. 1. 35 ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Αμορραῖος κατοικεῖν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ
ὀστρακώδει (Α τοῦ μυρσινῶνος), ἐ ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἄρκοι καὶ ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἀλώπεκες,
ἐν τῷ μυρσινῶνι καὶ ἐν Θαλαβείν (A om. ἐν τῷ p. κ. ἐν O.). Vill.
13, ἐπέστρεψεν Γεδεὼν... ἀπὸ ἐπάνωθεν τῆς παρατάξεως ” Ἄρες (Α ἐκ
τοῦ πολέμου ἀπὸ ἀναβάσεως Apes). ΧΙ]. 6 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ Εἶπον
δὴ Στάχυς (A Σύνθημα). xv. 14 ff. ἦλθον ἕως Σιαγόνος...καὶ εὗρεν

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 447

, 4 x). ae e A A 4 ‘ 5 ~ , ‘

σιαγόνα ὄνου... καὶ ἔρρηξεν 6 θεὸς τὸν λάκκον τὸν ἐν TH Σιαγόνι...διὰ
- ~ A - ,

τοῦτο ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Πηγὴ τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου, ἥ ἐστιν ἐν

J

Σιαγόνι. XVill. 30 υἱὸς Γηρσὸμ υἱὸς (A υἱοῦ) Mavacon (ΠΙ ΓΞ : on
the 2 suspensum see Moore in comm. on Sacred Books, ad loc.).
I Regn. x. 5 οὗ ἐστιν ἐκεῖ τὸ ἀνάστεμα τῶν ἀλλοφύλων: ἐκεῖ Νασεὶβ
ὁ ἀλλόφυλος. Xili. 21 καὶ ἦν 6 τρυγητὸς ἕτοιμος τοῦ θερίζειν" τὰ
δὲ σκεύη ἦν τρεῖς σίκλοι εἰς τὸν ὀδόντα, καὶ τῇ ἀξίνῃ, καὶ τῷ δρεπάνῳ
ὑπόστασις ἦν ἡ αὐτή. XX. 30 υἱὲ κορασίων αὐτομολούντων (Luc. +
γυναικοτραφῆ). XXVll. IO κατὰ νότον τῆς Ἰουδαίας. ΧΧΧΙ. 10 ἀνέ-
θηκαν τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ᾿Ασταρτεῖον. 2 Regn. i. 21 θυρεὸς
Σαοὺλ οὐκ ἐχρίσθη ἐν ἐλαίῳ. ΧΙ]. 31 διήγαγεν (A ἀπήγαγεν) αὐτοὺς
διὰ τοῦ πλινθείου (Luc. περιήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐν pac δεββάλ. xx. 6 μη
ποτε. ε“σκιάσει τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμῶν. XXIV. I5 ἀπὸ πρωίθεν [καὶ]
ἕως ὥρας ἀρίστου. 3 Regn. Xlil. 12 [Καὶ δεικνύουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ υἱοὶ
αὐτοῦ τὴν ὁδόν. 4 Regn. 112. ἐπιζητήσατε ἐν τῷ Βάαλ μυῖαν θεὸν
᾿Ακκαρών (Luc. ἐπερωτήσατε διὰ τοῦ Βάαλ μυῖαν προσόχθισμα θεὸν
᾿Ακκαρών). viil. 13 Tis ἐστιν ὁ δοῦλός σου, ὃ κύων ὁ τεθνηκώς, ὃ ὅτι
ποιήσει τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο; XX1il. 221. οὐκ ἐγενήθη [κατὰ] τὸ πάσχα
τοῦτο ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν τῶν κριτῶν...οὅτι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει τοῦ
βασιλέως Ἰωσεία ἐγενήθη τὸ πάσχα [τοῦτο] (cf. 2 Chr. xxxv. 18).

(6) The translated titles of the Psalms form a special and
interesting study. The details are collected below, and can be
studied with the help of the commentaries, or of Neubauer’s
article in Studia Biblica 11. p. τ ff

Ψαλμός, WD passim (4H in Ps. vii., WY in Ps. xlv. (xlvi.)).

Ὠδηή, VY passim 615 in Ps. iv., fi'97 in Ps. ix. 17).

Ψαλμὸς δῆς, WWD Pss. xxix., xlvii., Ixvii., lxxiv., lxxxii.,
bexxvi_, XCi., ΞΟΠ: (A); δὴ ψαλμοῦ, “ον Ὦ or Wor Ww (Ixv.,
Ixxxil., ote Cvli.).

Προσευχή: ban (Pss; xvi, booxv., borxix, ΟΊ ΌΧΙ

“Αλληλουιά, Ayan (Pss. clv.—cvi., Cx.—CXiv., CXvi., CXVii., CXxxXiv.,
Cxxxv., Cxlv., cxlvi., cxlvili.—cl.).

Αἴνεσις, nban ἘΞ exlty, ).

Στηλογραφία, εἰς στηλογραφίαν, DAD) (Pss. xv., lv.—lix.). Ag. rod
ταπεινόφρονος καὶ ἁπλοῦ, Th. τοῦ ταπ. καὶ ἀμώμου.

Eis τὸ τέλος, ny292 (Pss. iv.—xlil., xvii., xviii., xxi., xxix., xxx.,
xxxV.—1x1., Ixiii—lxix., Ixxiv.—Ixxvi., Ixxix., Ixxx., Ixxxiii.,

1 The titles which are given in the LxXx. but are wanting in ffl, have
been enumerated in Pt. Il. c. li. (p. 250 ff.).

448 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

Ixxxiv., Ixxxvii., Cil., cCviii., Cxxxviil., cxxxix.). Cf. Aq. τὰ
νικοποιῷ, Symm. ἐπινίκιος, Th. εἰς τὸ νῖκος.

Ἔν ὕμνοις, n3*433 (Pss. vi., liii., liv., lx., Ixvi., Ixxv.).

Ἐν ψαλμοῖς, M3393 (Ps. iv.).

Ὑπὲρ τῆς κληρονομούσης, (?) mb maT-ON (Ps. v.). Aq. ἀπὸ KAnpo-
δοσιῶν, Symm. ὑπὲρ κληρουχιῶν.

Ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης, MDW (Pss. vi., χί.).

Ὑπὲρ τῶν λόγων Χουσεὶ υἱοῦ Ἴεμεν εἰ, "2253 wa II (Ps. vii.).
Aq., Symm., Th. περί, κτλ.

Ὑπὲρ τῶν ληνῶν, MAID (Pss. viii., lxxx., Ixxxiii.). Aq., Th. ὑπὲρ
τῆς γετθίδος.

Ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων τοῦ υἱοῦ, 125 πλοῦν (Ps. 1x.; cf. ΧΙ). ΤΑ
ὑπὲρ νεανιότητος Tov υἱοῦ, Th. ὑπὲρ ἀκμῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ, Symm. |
περὶ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ.

Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀντιλήμψεως τῆς ἑωθινῆς, πα προ τὸν (Ps. xxi.). Aq:
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλάφου τῆς ὀρθρινῆς. Symm. ὑπὲρ τῆς βοηθείας τῆς

ὀρθρ. ἣν
πὲρ τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων, D'IYW-OY (Pss. xliv., lix., Ixviii., Ixxix.).

Aq. ἐπὶ τοῖς κρίνοις, Symm. ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀνθῶν, Th. ὑπὲρ τῶν
κρίνων.

Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ (δή), ΠῚ (WY) (Ps. xliv.). Aq. dopa

᾿ προσφιλίας, Symm. dopa εἰς τὸν ἀγαπητόν, Th. τοῖς ἠγαπη-
μένοις. : :

Ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων μεμακρυμμένου, DPT) DPN ΠΡΊΩΝ,
(Ps. lv.). Aq. ὑπὲρ περιστερᾶς ἀλάλου μακρυσμῶν. Symm.
ὑπὲρ τῆς περιστερᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ φίλου αὐτοῦ ἀπωσμένου. Ε΄. ὑπὲρ
τῆς π. τῆς μογγιλάλου κεκρυμμένων.

Ὑπὲρ ᾿Ιδιθούν, pnaT oy (Pss. xxxviil., 1xi., Ixxvi.).

“Ymép μαελὲθ (τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι), (MI3~>) NEN (Pss. lii., Lxxxvii.).
Aq. ἐπὶ χορείᾳ (Symm. διὰ χοροῦ) τοῦ ἐξάρχειν.

Εἰς ἀνάμνησιν, dT? (Pss. xxxvii., 1xix.).

Eis ἐξομολόγησιν, nqine (Ps. xcix.). Aq. εἰς εὐχαριστίαν.

Eis σύνεσιν, συνέσεως, SYD (Pss. xxxi., xli—xliv., lii—liii., Lxxiii.,
Ixxxvii., Ixxxviii., cxli.), Ag. ἐπιστήμονος, ἐπιστήμης, ἐπιστη-
μοσύνης. ΔΎ

Μὴ διαφθείρῃς, NNWANPS (Pss. lvi.—lviil., Ixxiv.). Symm. (Ps.

Ixxiv.) περὶ ἀφθαρσίας.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 449

Tov ἐνκαινισμοῦ τοῦ οἴκου, NAN" n2in (Psi) κεῖσ.)
Τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν, nioyan (Rss: CXIX. —cxxxiii.). Aq., Symm., Th.

τῶν ἀναβάσεων, εἰς Tas ἀναβάσεις.

It may be added that 19D! (Pss. iii. 3, 5, iv. 3, 5) vii. 6, &c., &c.)

is uniformly διάψαλμα in the LXx.; Aq. renders it ἀεί, Symm.
and Th. agree with the LXX. except that in Ps. ix. 17 dei is
attributed to Th. In the Psalm of Habakkuk (Hab. iii. 3) Symm.
renders eis τὸν αἰῶνα, Th. εἰς τέλος, and in v. 13 eis τέλος has found
its way into copies of the LXx. (cf. 8“, and Jerome: “ipsi 1,ΧΧ.
rerum necessitate compulsi...nunc transtulerunt zz fizem’’).

(Ὁ) Exegetical help is sometimes to be obtained from a
guarded use of the interpretation affixed by the Lxx. (1) to
obscure words, especially ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, and (2) to certain
proper names. Some examples of both are given below.

(1) Gen. i. 2 ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. 6 στερέωμα.
ii. ὃ τὸ δειλινόν. 15 τηρήσει... τηρήσεις. Vi. 2 οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ
θεοῦ (cf. Deut. xxxil. 8, Job i. ΟΣ 1 Des: 48 γίγαντες. vill. 21
διανοηθείς. ΧΧΙΪ. 2 τὸν ἀγαπητόν. six: ΤΟ ἡγούμενος.
Exod. vi. 12 dAoyos. vill. 21 kuvdpuca. xii. 22 ὕσσωπος.
XXV. 29 ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι (cf. a. προκείμενοι XXXIX. 18= 36, a. τοῦ
προσώπου I Regn. xxi. 6). xxvill. 15 λόγιον, Vulg. rationale.
Exod. XXXIV. 13 τὰ ἄλση Vulg. luct, A.V. groves. Lev. xvi. 8 ff. 6
ἀποπομπαῖος, ἡ ἀποπομπή. Dent: x16 ΤΈΛΗ ΘΟΕ ἀρὸ τὰ Jud.
X1X. 22 viol παρανόμων (cf. viol λοιμοί I Regn. 1]. 12, and other
renderings, which employ ἀνομία, ἀνόμημα, ef ee ἀσεβής,
ἄφρων). 2 Regn. i. 1ὃ τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ εὐθοῦς. 3 Regn. x. II ξύλα
Terex πα (Ch. 2,Chr. il. Ὁ, tx. ΤΟῚ €. πεύκινα). Ps. vill. 6 παρ᾽
ἀγγέλους. xv. 9 ἡ γλῶσσά pov. xvi. 8 κόρα ὀφθαλμοῦ. ᾿ 14
πνεύμα ἡγεμονικόν. CXXXVill. 15 ἡ ὑπόστασίς μου. 16 τὸ ἀκατέρ-
γαστόν gov. Prov, il. 18 παρὰ τῷ ἅδῃ μετὰ τῶν γηγενῶν
(a doublet). Job ix. 9 Πλειάδα καὶ Ἕσπερον καὶ ᾿Αρκτοῦρον
(cf. xxxviil. save Zeph. i. 10 ἀπὸ τῆς δευτέρας (cf. 4 Regn. xxii. 14).
Isa. xxxvill. ὃ (4 Regn. xxil.) rods δέκα ἀναβαθμούς. Ezech.
ΧΙ]. 18 Pp opeecde hae, ἐπιβόλαια.

(2) <Abarim, mountains of, ὩΣ ΠΞΏΤΙΓΠ, τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἐν τῷ πέραν,

Num. xxvii. 12 (cf. xxi. II, xxxill. 44). Agagtte, Βουγαῖος, Esth.
ili. 1, A 17 (xii. 6); Μακεδών: E (xvi.) ‘Io. Ararat, land of,
ΟΝ OS, “Appevia, Isa. xxxvil. 38. Ashtoreth NAWY, ᾿Αστάρτη

1 On this word see an article by C. A. Briggs, in the Journal of Biblical
Literature, 1899, Ρ. 132 ff.

Sos: 29

450 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

(the Phoenician ‘Ashtart), Jud. 11. 13, 4 Regn. xxiii. 13. Baca,
valley of, SAD Pry, ἡ κοιλὰς τοῦ κλαυθμῶνος, Ps. lxxxiii. 7 (cf.
Jud. ii. 5, 2 Regn. v. 24, 1 Chr. xiv. 14). Caphtor, Caphtorim,
Καππαδοκία, Καππάδοκες, Deut. 11. 23, Am. ix. 7. Cherethites,
DN ID, Κρῆτες, Zeph. 11. 5, Ezech. xxv. 16. Dodanim, D275,
“Ῥόδιοι (DIT), Gen. x. 4. Enhakkore ΡΠ, Πηγὴ τοῦ
ἐπικαλουμένου, Jud. xv. 19. Lchabod, W328, οὐαὶ βαρχαβώθ
(ΡΞ ΓἸΞΙΠῚΞ 4s, Wellh.), 1 Regn. iv. 21. Favan, ἡ Ἕλλάς, Isa.
Ixvi. 19 (cf. Joel 111. 6). Fehovah-nissz, Κύριος καταφυγή pov,
Exod. xvil. 15. Keren-happuch, A301 72, ᾿Αμαλθείας κέρας, Job
xlii. 14. Atriath-sepher, 12D NYP, πόλις γραμμάτων, Jos. xv. 15 f.,
Macpelah, naron, TO σπήλαιον τὸ διπλοῦν, Gen. xxiii. 17, 19
(xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13). Moriah, land of, 77100 YIN, ἡ γῆ ἡ
ὑψηλή, Gen. xxii. 2. Pisgah, IDBO, τὸ λελαξευμένον, Num.
Xx]. 20, xxill. 14, Deut. i. 27 (cf. Deut. iv. 49). Zaanaim,
plain of, DSA Hos, δρῦς πλεονεκτούντων (B), dp. ἀναπαυομένων
(A), Jud. iv. 11 (cf. Moore, ad loc.). Zaphnath-paaneah, Nids
ΓΩΝΞ, Ψονθομφανήχ, Gen. xli. 45 (Ball, ad doc. compares Egypt.
sut’aen pa-any). Pharaoh-Hophra, VEN 'B, ὁ Οὐαφρή, Jer. li.
(xliv.) 30 (cf. W. E. Crum in Hastings, D. BZ. ii. p. 413).

B. The Septuagint is not less indispensable to the study
of the New Testament than to that of the Old. But its
importance in the former field is more often overlooked, since
its connexion with the N.T. is less direct and obvious, except —
in the case of express quotations from the Alexandrian
version’. These, as we have seen, are so numerous that in
the Synoptic Gospels and in some of the Pauline Epistles they
form a considerable part of the text. But the New Testament
has been yet more widely and more deeply influenced by the
version through the subtler forces which shew themselves in
countless allusions, lying oftentimes below the surface of the
words, and in the use of a vocabulary derived from it, and in
many cases prepared by it for the higher service of the Gospel.

1 On the quotations see above p. 392 ff.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 451

1. The influence of the Lxx. over the writings of the N.T.
is continually shewn in combinations of words or in trains of
thought which point to the presence of the version in the
background of the writer’s mind, even when he may not
consciously allude to it.

This occurs frequently (4) in the sayings of our Lord, where,
if He spoke in Aramaic, the reference to the LXX. is due to the
translator: e.g. Mt. v. 3 ff μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί...οἱ πενθοῦντες..
oi mpaets (Isa. lxi. 1 ff., Ps. xxxvi. 11). vi. 6 eloeAOe eis τὰ
ταμεῖόν σου (Isa. xxvi. 20). x. 21, 35 ἐπαναστήσονται τέκνα
ἐπὶ γονεῖς.. ἦλθον yap διχάσαι...θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς
καὶ νύμφην. κτλ. (Mic. vii. 6). xxl. 33 ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν
ἀμπελῶνα καὶ φραγμὸν αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν κτλ. (Isa. ν. 25.) Mies
ΙΧ. 48 βληθῆναι εἰς γέενναν ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ
καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται (isa. Iixvis 2) Jock 52 ὄψεσθε τὸν
οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ΠΡ αβα νολδις καὶ κατα-
βαίνοντας (Gen. xxvill. 12); (ὁ) in the translated evangelical
record: Mc. vil. 32 φέρουσιν αὐτῷ κωφὸν καὶ μογιλάλον... καὶ
ἐλύθη ὁ δεσμός κτλ. (Isa. xxxv. ἘΠ xlil. 7). xv. 29 of mapamo-
ρευόμενοι ἐβλασφήμουν αὐτὸν κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλάς: cf. Le.
XXlll. 35 ἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν’: ἐξεμυκτήριζον δέ κτλ. (Ps.
xxl. 8, Isa. li. 23, Lam. ii. 15); (c) in the original Greek writings
of the N.T., where allusions of this kind are even more abundant;
I Pet. 11. 9 ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα,
ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε
κτλ. (Εχοά. ies hfs xxii 58.- xiii. - 20). iil. 14 tov Oe
φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε ange ,“ταραχθῆτε, κύριον δὲ τὸν
χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν (Isa. viii. 12 f.). Rom.
Xl. 17 προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων: er oar
Vill. 21 mpovootpev yap καλὰ ov μόνον ἐνώπιον Κυρίου ἀλλὰ
καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων (Prov. 11]. 4; in Rom. /. c. this allusion is
preceded by another to Prov. iil. 7). 2 Cor. iii. 3ff.: Exod. xxxi.,
XXXIV... (LXX.) are in view throughout this context. Eph. il. 1 17
εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς
(Isa. lvii. 19, cf. li. 7, 1[Χ]. 1). Phil. i. 19 οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι τοῦτό μοι
ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν (Job xiii. 16. Heb. vi. 8 γῆ..
ἐκφέρουσα... ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους...κατάρας ἐγγύς (Gen.

ἍΝ

These are but a few illustrations of a mental habit every-
where to be observed in the writers of the N.T., which shews
-them to have been not only familiar with the Lxx., but
saturated with its language. They used it as Englishmen use

29—2

452 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

the Authorised Version of the Bible, working it into the texture
of their thoughts and utterances. It is impossible to do
justice to their writings unless this fact is recognised, i.e., unless
the reader is on the watch for unsuspected references to the
Greek O.T., and able to appreciate its influence upon his
author’s mind.

2. To what extent the vocabulary of the N.T. has been
influenced by the Lxx. is matter of keen controversy. In
a weighty essay On the Value and Use of the Septuagint Dr
‘Hatch has maintained that “the great majority of N.T. words
are words which, though for the most part common to Biblical
and to contemporary secular Greek, express in their Biblical
use the conceptions of a Semitic race, and which must con-
sequently be examined by the light of the cognate documents
which form the Lxx.’” ‘This statement, which has been hotly
contested, may conveniently form the basis of our discussion
of the subject.

(a) ‘*The great majority of N.T. words are...common to
Biblical and contemporary secular Greek.” This is certainly
true. Thus Dr H. A. A. Kennedy*® enumerates about 150
words out of over 4800 in the N.T. which are “strictly
peculiar to the Lxx. and N.T.” The list is as follows:

ἀγαθοποιεῖν, ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, ἀγαλλίασις, ἁγιάζειν,
΄ ΄σ ’ὔ
ἁγιασμός, ἁγιωσύνη, αἴνεσις, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, αἰχμαλωτεύειν, ἀλίσγημα,
΄ ΄ > ΄ » ΄ > ,
ἁλληλουιά, ἀλλογενής, ἀμέθυστος, ἀμὴν, ἀμφιάζειν, ἀναζωννύειν,
ἀναθεματίζειν, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, ἀνταπόδομα, ἀποδε-
΄ > ΄ 3 , > , , ,
κατοῖν, ἀποκάλυψις, ἀποκεφαλίζειν, ἀποφθέγγεσθαι, βάτος, βδέ-
- , , , ’ ,
λυγμα, βεβηλοῦν, βροχή, γέεννα, γνώστης, γογγύζειν, γυμνότης,
δεκατοῦν, δεκτός, διαγογγύζειν, δολιοῦν, δότης, “δυναμοῦν, ἑβδομη-
| > r > , ,
κοντάκις, εἰρηνοποιεῖν, ἐκζητεῖν, ἐκμυκτηρίζειν, ἐκπειράζειν, ἐκπορ-
~ », , > ,, ᾿»
νεύειν, ἐκριζοῦν, ἐλεγμός, ἔλεγξις, ἐμπαιγμός, ἐμπαίκτης, ἔναντι,
, “- σι > ,
ἐνδιδύσκειν, ἐνδοξάζειν, ἐνδυναμοῦν, evevAoyeiv, ἐνκαινίζειν, ἔνταλμα;,
> , > , > , > , > , >
ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνώπιον, ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ἐξάπινα, ἐξαστράπτειν, ἐξολε-
- ’ , ,
Θρεύειν, eEovdevody, ἐξυπνίζειν, ἐπαύριον, ἐπισκοπή, ἐπαναπαΐύειν,
’ ld >
ἐπιγαμβρεύειν, ἐπιφαύσκειν, ἐρήμωσις, εὐδοκία, ἐφημερία, ἥττημα,

1 Essays, Pp» 34+ 2 Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 88.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 453

θέλησις, ἱερατεύειν, ἱεράτευμα, καθαρίζειν, καθαρισμός, κατακαυχᾶ-
σθαι, κατακληρονομεῖν, κατάνυξις, κατανύσσειν, κατενώπιον, κατοι-
κητήριον, καύσων, καύχησις, κλυδωνίζεσθαι, κόρος, κραταιοῦν, λαξευτός,
λειτουργικός, λύτρωσις, μακροθυμεῖν, μάννα, ματαιότης, ματαιοῦν,
μεγαλειότης, μεγαλωσύνη, μετοικεῖν, μίσθιος, “μογιλάλος, μοιχαλίς,
νῖκος, ὀλεθρεύειν, ὀλιγόψυχος, ὁλοκληρία, ὀπτάνειν, ὀπτασία, ὀρθο-
τομεῖν, ὀρθρίζειν, ὁρκωμοσία, οὐαί, παγιδεύειν, παραζηλοῦν, παρα-
πικρασμός, παροικία, παροργισμός, πατριάρχης, πειρασμός, περι-
κάθαρμα, περιούσιος, περισσεία, πληροφορεῖν, πρόσκομμα, προσ-
οχθίζειν, πρωινός, ῥαντίζειν, ῥαντισμός, σαβαώθ, σάββατον, σαγήνη;
σατανᾶς, σάτον, σητόβρωτος, σίκερα, σκάνδαλον, σκληροκαρδία,
σκληροτράχηλος, στήκειν, στυγνάζειν, συνεγείρειν, ταπεινόφρων,
ὑπακοή, ὑπάντησις, ὑπολήνιον, ὑπεροψοῦν, ὑστέρημα, φωστήρ,
χερουβείμ, ψιθυρισμός, ὠτίον.

Since the publication of Dr Kennedy’s book some of these
words (e.g. γογγύζειν, λειτουργικός 1) have been detected in early
papyri, and as fresh documents are discovered and examined,
the number of ‘Biblical’ Greek words will doubtless be still
further diminished. Indeed the existence of such a class of
words may be almost entirely due to accidental causes, such as
the loss of contemporary Hellenistic literature.

(2) On the other hand it must not be forgotten that the
Greek vocabulary of Palestinian Greek-speaking Jews in the
first century A.D. was probably derived in great part from their
use of the Greek Old Testament. Even in the case of
writers such as St Luke, St Paul, and the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, the Lxx. has no doubt largely regu-
lated the choice of words. A very considerable number of
the words of the N.T. seem to have been suggested by that
version, or in any case may be elucidated from it.

ΒΘ: ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, ἁγνίζειν, ἀγρυπνεῖν, αἴνιγμα,
αἱρετίζειν, ἀλαζονεύεσθαι, ἀλλογενής, ἀδιαλείπτως, ἀμάραντος, ἀμέ-
ριμνος, ἀμφίβληστρον, ἄμῴφοδον, ἀπελπίζειν, ἀπερίτμητος, ἁπλότης,
ἀπόκρυφος, βδέλυγμα, γλωσσόκομον, γνωρίζειν, διάδημα, δίδραχμα,
δίστομος, διυλίξειν, δωρεάν, ἐναγκαλίζεσθαι, ἐνταφιάζειν, ἐνωτίζεσθαι

μος, eee 3 v ? ?
ἑορτάζειν, ἐξέφνης, ἐξουδενοῦν, εὔκολος, εὐοδοῦν, GcowzBeta, ikavov-
σθαι, ἱκανός, ἰκμάς, ἱστορεῖν, καμμύειν, κατάγελως, καταδυναστεύειν,
κατακλυσμός, κατακυριεύειν, καταποντίζειν, καταφιλεῖν, καυχᾶσθαι,
κλάσμα, κοράσιον, κόφινος, λιθόστρωτος, λικμᾷν, μεσονύκτιον, μογι-
λάλος, μυκτηρίζειν, νεομηνία, νῖκος, νυστάζειν, οἰκουμένη (7), ὁμοθυμα-

gp Oe Tap ’ μῆνια, ) ’ ee. Ps. Oe ae

1 Deissmann, Aibelstudien, pp. 106, 138.

454 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

dov, ὀστράκινος, παγιδεύειν, παιδάριον, παραδειγματίζειν, παρακούειν,
παρεπίδημος, πάροικος, περικεφαλαία, περίλυπος, περίχωρος, περί-
ψημα, πήρα, πλεονάζειν, πολυλογία, πολυπραγμονεῖν, προσήλυτος,
προσκεφάλαιον, ῥάπισμα, ῥύμη, σαγήνη, σίκερα, σίνδων, σκόλοψ,
στενοχωρία, συλλογίζεσθαι, συμβιβάζειν, σύμφυτος, ταμ(ι)εῖον, τετρά-
δραχμον, τρυμαλία, τυμπανίζειν, ὑπογραμμός, φιμοῦν, χορτάζειν,
χρηματίζειν, ψευδοπροφήτης. To these may be added ἃ consider-
able class of words which are based on LXx. words though they do
not occur in the LXX.; €.g.: ἀπροσωπολήμπτως, βάπτισμα (-pos),
δαιμονίζεσθαι, πνευματικός, σαρκικός, Ψψευδόχριστος.

(c) The influence of the Lxx. is still more clearly seen in
the N.T. employment of religious words and phrases which
occur in the Lxx. at an earlier stage in the history of their use.
The following list will supply illustrations of these:

ἀγάπη; ἀγαπητός, ἁγιάζειν, ἁγιασμός, ἀδελφός, ἀδόκιμος, αἵρεσις,
αἰσθητήριον, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, ἀνάθεμα, ἀναζωπυρεῖν, ἀνακαινίζειν, ἀνα-
στροφή, ἀνατολή, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀπαρχή, ἀπαύγασμα, ἄφεσις, ἀφο-
ρίζειν, βαπτίζειν, βεβαίωσις, βλασφημεῖν, γαζοφυλάκιον, γέεννα,
γραμματεύς, γρηγορεῖν, δαιμόνιον, διαθήκη, δόγμα, ἔθνη, εἰρηνικός,
εἰρηνοποιεῖν, ἐκκλησία, ἔκστασις, ἐλεημοσύνη, ἐνέργεια, ἐξομολο-
γεῖσθαι, ἐξουσία, ἐπερώτημα, ἐπίσκοπος, ἐπισυνάγειν, ἐπιφάνεια,
ἐπιχορηγεῖν, ἑτοιμασία, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, εὐαρεστεῖν, εὐδοκία, εὐλάβεια,
ζηλωτής, ζωγρεῖν, ζωογονεῖν, θέλημα, θρησκεία, ἱλασμός, ἱλαστήριον,
᾿ἸΙουδαισμός, καταλλαγή, κατάνυξις, κήρυγμα, κυβέρνησις, Κύριος,
λειτουργεῖν, λόγος, λοιμός, λυτροῦσθαι, μεγαλειότης, μεγαλωσύνη,
μεταμέλεια, μετεωρίζεσθαι, μονογενής, μορφή, μυστήριον, νεόφυτος,
ὁλόκληρος, ὀρθοτομεῖν, ὁσιότης, παραβολή, παράδεισος, πάροικος, πει-
ρασμός, περιούσιος, περιοχή, περιποιεῖσθαι, πίστις, πληροφορεῖσθαι,
πλήρωμα, πνεῦμα, πρεσβύτερος, προσάγειν, ῥύεσθαι, σάρξ, σκάν-
δαλον, σκληροτράχηλος, σεμνός, συνείδησις, σφραγίζειν, σωτηρία,
τάρταρος, ὑπύστασις, ὑστέρημα, Ὕψιστος, φιλάνθρωπος, φῶς, χα-
ρακτήρ, χειρόγραφον, χριστός. Many of the characteristic phrases
of the N.T. also have their roots in the LXx., e. Sg: εἰκὼν θεοῦ
(Gen. 1. 26), ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας (viil. 21), πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος
(xxill. 4), πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (ΧΧΧΙ͂Ι. .30) λαὸς περιούσιος
(Exod, xix. 5), δόξα Κυρίου (xl. 29) θυσία αἰνέσεως (Lev. vil. 2),
λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον (xix. 15), ἡ διασπορά (Deut. xxx. 4); yevea
διεστραμμένη, σκολιά (Xxxil. 5.) μὴ γένοιτο (Jos. ΧΧΙΪ. 29), ἵλεώς σοι
(2 Regn. XX. 20), μικρὸν. ὅσον ὅσον (XXVi. 20), διάβολος ( Chron.
XXl. 1), τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ (Ps. xcvii. 3), ῳδὴ καινή, “ὄνομα
καινόν, and the like (Ps. cxliii. 9, Isa. [Χ1]. 2, &c.), Κύριος ὁ παν-
τοκράτωρ (Am. ix. 5), δοῦλος Κυρίου (Jon. 1 ἜΠΟΣ; τράπεζα Κυρίου
(Mal. i. 7), ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς (Isa. x. 3), ΤΉΝ Κυρίου (xii. 6, 9)
ὁ παῖς {roo θεοῦ] (xli. ὃ, &c.), ἐγώ εἶμι (xlili. 10), ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 455

(xlix. 1), τὰ πετεινὰ Tov οὐρανοῦ (Ezech. xxxi. 6), ὁ Tay καὶ Maywy
(XXXvill. 2).

The non-canonical books have their full share in the contri-
bution which the Septuagint makes to the vocabulary of the.
N.T. Many Biblical words occur for the first time in the O.T.
‘Apocrypha,’ or reach there a further stage in the history of
their use, or appear in new combinations. The following | ex-
amples will repay examination : αἰών, ἀπαύγασμα, ἀποκάλυψις, ἀπο-
στολή, ἀσύνετος, ἄφεσις, βαπτίζειν, βασιλεία (τοῦ θεοῦ), δαιμόνιον,
διακονία, διαπονεῖσθαι, δικαιοῦν, ἔκβασις, ἐκλεκτός, ἐμβατεύειν, ἐπί-
σκοπος, ἐπιστροφή, ἐπιτιμία, ἐπιφάνεια, εὔσπλαγχνος, εὐχαριστία,
ἴδιος, iMac pos, ἱλαστήριον, κανών, κλῆρος, κληροῦν, κοινός, κοινοῦν,
κόσμος, κτίσις, λειτουργία, λειτουργύς, μυστήριον (τοῦ θεοῦ), νόμος,
παρουσία, πεντηκοστή, σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, σκανδαλίζειν, συμπάθεια,
συμπαθεῖν, σωτήρ, χάρις καὶ ἔλεος, χριστός.

(dq) “The great majority of N.T. words and phrases
express...the conceptions of a Semitic race, and...must con-
sequently be examined by the light of...the Lxx.” But the
connotation will usually be found to have undergone con-
siderable changes, both in ordinary words and in those which
are used in a religious sense. In order to trace the process
by which the transition has been effected the N.T. student
must begin with an investigation into the practice of the
Lxx. Such an enquiry may be of service in determining the
precise meaning which is to be given to the word in the
N.T., but it will more frequently illustrate the growth of
religious thought or of social life which has led to a change
of signification. Dr Hatch indeed laid down as “almost
self-evident” canons the two propositions (1) that ‘‘a word
which is used uniformly, or with few and intelligible exceptions,
as the translation of the same Hebrew word, must be held to
have in Biblical Greek the same meaning as that Hebrew
word”; and (2) that “ words which are used interchangeably as
translations of the same Hebrew word, or group of cognate
words, must be held to have in Biblical Greek an allied or
virtually identical meaning’.” These principles led him to

1 Essays, p. 35+

456 The Greck Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

some remarkable departures from the traditional interpretation
of N.T. words (eg, dpers=7i0 or MPIM=Sdéa, erawvos:
διάβολος -- OY =‘enemy’; ὁμοθυμαδόν = VIN, W=<‘ together’ ;
πτωχοί = πένητες = πραεῖς = ταπεινοί = ‘fellahin’; πονηρός, mali-
cious, mischievous; ὑποκριτής, the equivalent of πονηρός,
πανοῦργος, and the like). A searching examination of these
views will be found in Dr T. K. Abbott’s essay On MT.
Lextcography’. The πρῶτον ψεῦδος of Dr Hatch’s canons lies
in his use of the term ‘Biblical Greek’ as inclusive of the
pre-Christian Greek of the Alexandrian translators, and the
Palestinian Greek of the Apostolic age. While it is evident
that the writers of the N.T. were largely indebted to the
Alexandrian version for their Greek vocabulary, we cannot
safely assume that they attached to the Greek words and
phrases which they borrowed from it the precise significance
that belonged to them in the older book. Allowance must be
made for altered circumstances, and in particular for the
influence of the Gospel, which threw new meaning into the
speech as well as the life of men. One or two instances will
shew the truth of this remark. ᾿Αγάπη in the Lxx. rarely rises
above the lower sense of the sexual passion, or at best the
affection of human friendship; the exceptions are limited to
the Greek Book of Wisdom (Sap. 111. 9, vi. 18°). But in the
N.T., where the word is far more frequent, it is used only of
the love of God for men, or of men for God or Christ, or for
the children of God as such. ἨἜἘκκλησία in the Lxx. is the
congregation of Israel; in the N.T., except perhaps in Mt.
XVlll. 17, it is the new community founded by Christ’, viewed
in different aspects and with many shades of meaning. Evay-
γέλιον in the Lxx. occurs only in the plural, and perhaps only

1 Essays, p. 65 ff.
2 ᾽᾿Αγάπησις occurs in the sense of Divine love (Hos. xi. 4, Zeph. iii.
14, Jer. XXL 5):
See Hort, Zhe Christian Ecclesia, p. 9 f.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 457

in the classical sense of ‘a reward for good tidings’ (2 Regn. iv.
10); in the N.T. it is from the first appropriated to the
Messianic good tidings (Me. i. 1, 14), probably deriving this
new meaning from the use of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in Isa. xl. 9, 11].
ΠΡ dee Gyelagt sat

Thus on the whole it is clear that caution must be used in
employing the practice of the Lxx. to determine the connota-
tion of N.T. words. On the one hand the interpreter ought
not to be led astray by visions of the solidarity of ‘ Biblical
Greek,’ for the Greek of the N.T., though in fact largely de-
rived from the Greek of the Lxx., has in not a few instances
cast off the traditions of its source under the inspiration of
another age. On the other hand, the student of the N.T. will
make the Lxx. his starting-point in examining the sense of all
words and phrases which, though they may have been used in
classical Greek or by the κοινή, passed into Palestinian use
through the Greek Old Testament, and in their passage received
the impress of Semitic thought and life. Bishop Pearson’s
judgement on this point is still fully justified: ‘‘Lxxviralis
versio...ad Novum Instrumentum recte intelligendum et accu-
rate explicandum perquam necessaria est...in illam enim omnes
idiotismi veteris linguae Hebraicae erant transfusi...multa
itaque Graeca sunt in Novo Foedere vocabula quae ex usu
Graecae linguae intelligi non possunt, ex collatione autem

1 99

Hebraea et ex usu LXx. interpretum facile intelliguntur’.

II. The Greek versions of the second century A.D. are in
many respects of less importance to the Biblical student than
the Septuagint. Not only are they later by two to four cen-
turies, but they exist only in a fragmentary state, and the text of
the fragments is often insecure. But there are services which
they can render when rightly employed, and which the careful
student will not forget to demand.

1 Praef. paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 22 f.

458 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

1. Each of these versions has characteristics of its own,
which must be taken into account in estimating its value.

(a) Aquila represents the official Hebrew text in its
earliest stage, and his extreme literalness and habit of trans-
lating ἐτυμολογικῶς render it easy to recover the text which
lay before him. In the large fragments of 3 and 4 Regn. pub-
lished by Mr Burkitt, Aquila’s Hebrew text differs from that of
the printed Bibles only in thirteen readings’, an average of one
variant in every second verse. Still more important is Aquila’s
reflexion of the exegetical tradition of the school of Jamnia.
Here as in his text he is often in direct opposition to the Lxx.,
and serves as a useful makeweight against the influence of
the Alexandrian interpretation. Especially is this the case in
regard to the meaning of obscure words, which Aquila trans-
lates with a full knowledge of both languages and of other
Semitic tongues’, whilst the Lxx. too often depended upon
guess-work. ‘This merit of Aquila was recognised by Jerome,
who makes use of his interpretations inthe Vulgate*. Moreover
the influence which his work has exercised over the text of the
LXX. renders it important to the textual critic of the older
Greek version®. (4) The paraphrasing manner of Symmachus
hinders the free use of his version either for textual or herme-
neutical purposes. But it is often interesting as revealing the
exegetical tendencies of his school, and its fulness serves to
correct the extreme literalness of Aquila. Jerome used it for
his Vulgate even more freely than he used Aquila; cf. Field,
Hexapla \., p. xxxiv. “quem tam presse secutus est magnus
ille interpres Latinus...ut aliquando nobis successerit ex Hie-
ronymi Latinis Symmachi Graeca...satis probabiliter extricare.”
(c) Theodotion, besides contributing a whole book to the ¢extus

See above, p. 40.

Cf. Aguila, p. 16 f.

Field, Hexapla, τ. p. xxiv.
Lbidem.

See Burkitt, Aguz/a, p. 18 ff.

aA . ὦ we

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 459

receptus of the Greek Old Testament, preserves in his text of
the other books traces of a recension of the Lxx. which seems
at one time to have had a wide circulation, since Theodotionic
readings occur in the Lxx. quotations of the N.T. and in those
of other Christian writers before A.D. 150°.

2. All the post-Christian translators of the O.T., but espe-
cially Aquila, Symmachus, and the author of the Quinta’, appear
to have been not only competent Hebraists, but possessed of a
more or less extensive knowledge of Greek literature. ‘These
qualifications render them valuable allies to the interpreter
whether of the New or of the Old Testament. (a) In the
case of the O.T. they serve to confirm or correct the Lxx.
renderings, or to illustrate their meaning. The renderings of
the earlier version are not infrequently retained, e.g. Gen. 1. 2
NBM) Ο΄ ἐπεφέρετο, ᾿Α.Σ.Θ. ἐπιφερόμενον. 6 WPI, O'A.3.O.
στερέωμα. το DNDN, O'3.0. τὰ συστέματα (συστήματα) τῶν
ὑδάτων. More often they are set aside in favour of other words
which do not materially differ in signification, but seem to have
been preferred as more exact, or as better Greek, e.g. Gen. xlix. 19
973 Ο΄ πειρατήριον, A. εὔζωνος, Σ. λόχος. Exod. v. 13 0230
Ο΄ οἱ ἐργοδιῶκται, “A. of εἰσπρᾶκται. Jud. v. τό a2-7EN O’
ἐξετασμοὶ καρδίας, "A. ἀκριβολογίαι κ., Σ. ἐξιχνιασμοὶ x. Ps,
Ixxxviii, 8 DWP TID Ὑ2 ON O' δ θεὸς δοξαζόμενος ἐν βουλῇ
ἁγίων, “A. ᾿Ισχυρὸς κατισχυρευόμενος ἐν ἀποῤῥήτῳ ἁ., Σ. θεὲ
ἀήττητε ἐν ὁμιλίᾳ a. At other times their rendering lies far
apart from that of the Lxx., manifesting complete dissent from
the Alexandrian version, e.g. Gen. xlvil. 31 020 O' ris
ῥάβδου, ᾿Α.Σ. τῆς κλίνης. Num. xxiii, 21 (422) MVNA O' τὰ
ἔνδοξα, "A. ἀλαλαγμός, Σ. σημασία, Θ. σαλπισμός. τ Regn. xiii.
20 IAWIND, O' τὸ θέριστρον (A.O. ἄροτρον, &. ὕνιν) αὐτοῦ. Ps.
ἴ 1; ἼΖΠΡ2 Ο΄ δράξασθε παιδείας, Α. καταφιλήσατε ἐκλεκτώς,

1 See pp. 47 ff., 395 f., 403, 417 etc.
2 On the excellence of his Greek scholarship see Field, of. ct. p. xliv.

460 The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study.

>. προσκυνήσατε καθαρῶς. To these instances may be added
others where the later translators substitute a literal rendering
for a paraphrase or a gloss; e.g. in Deut. x. 16 ’A. has axpo-
βυστίαν καρδίας for the euphemistic σκληροκαρδίαν of the Lxx. ;
in Ps. xv. 9 ’A.3.@. restore δόξα for the interpretative γλῶσσα.

(2) Dr Hatch points out’ that “in a large number of
instances the word which one or other of the translators
substitutes for the Lxx. word is itself used in other passages of
the Lxx. as the translation of the same Hebrew word”; and
he draws the conclusion that “the words which are so inter-
changed are practically synonymous.’’ But his inference must
be received with reserve, for the interchange may not be so free
as appears at first sight ; so careful a translator as Aquila (e.g.)
has probably regulated his use of words which are generally
synonymous with a view to the requirements of the particular
context.

(c) Many of the words of the N.T. which are not to be
found in the Lxx. occur in the fragments of the later Greek
versions, and receive important illustration from their use of
them. Indeed, in not a few instances these versions supply
the only or the best explanation of rarer words or connotations.
The following are examples. ᾿Αδημονεῖν, ’A. Job xvill. 20,
>. Ps. lx. 3, cxv. 3, Eccl. vii. 17, Ezech. il. 15 ; amoxapadoxia,
οὗ. ᾽Α. Ps. xxxvi. 7 (ἀποκαραδόκει) ; δαιμονίζειν, “A. Ps. xc. 6.
ἐνκακεῖν, ‘to faint,’ &. Gen. xxvii. 46; ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, “A. Ps. vil.
12, 3. Isa. xvil. 13; évOvpyous, ‘thought,’ 3S. Job xxi. 27,
Ezech. xi. 21; ἐπίβλημα, ‘patch,’ &. Jos. ix. 5; θεομάχος, &.
Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16, Job xxvi. 5; καταφέρεσθαι, ‘to drop
asleep, "A. Ps. lxxv. 7; μορφοῦν, A. Isa. xliv. 13°. Even where
the unusual word and meaning occur in the Lxx., it will often

1 Essays, p. 28.

2 These instances are chiefly from Hatch (Zssays, p. 25). They might

easily be multiplied by an inspection of the Oxford Concordance or of the
Lexicon and Hexapla at the end of Trom.

The Greek Versions as aids to Biblical Study. 461

be found that the later versions supply more abundant or
more appropriate illustrations. Thus after the Septuagint
these fragments, which are happily receiving continual addi-
tions from Hexaplaric MSS., offer the most promising field
for the investigation of N.T. lexicography and one, moreover,
which has been little worked.

On the whole, perhaps, no sounder advice could be given
to a student of the language of the N.T., than to keep con-
tinually at hand the Septuagint, the remains of the Hexapla
as edited by Field, and the Oxford Concordance which forms
a complete index to both. It is only when he has made some
way with the evidence of the Greek versions of the Old
Testament that he will be in a position to extend his re-
searches to non-Biblical literature, such as the papyri, the
remains of the Hellenistic writers, and the great monuments of
the later Greek.

LITERATURE (on the general subject of the chapter). J. Pear-
son, Praefatzo Paraenetica (ed. E. Churton), p. 16 sqq.; H. Hody,
de Bibl. textibus orig., 111. c. il., p. 293; J. F. Fischer, Prolusiones
de versiontbus Graecis librorum V. T. (Leipzig, 1772) ; Z. Frankel,
Vorstudien zur Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841), p. 263 ff.; E. W.
Grinfield, VV. 7. Gr., editto Hellenistica (London, 1843); Scholia
FHellenistica in Δ. T. (London, 1848); An Apology for the
Septuagint (London, 1850); W. R. Churton, Zhe Jufluence of the
LXX. Version of the O. T. upon the progress of Christianity
(Cambridge, 1861); W. Selwyn, art. Septuagint, in Smith’s D.B.,
iii. (London, 1863); W. H. Guillemard, 7he Greek Testament,
Hebraistic edition [St Matthew] (Cambridge, 1875); E. Hatch,
Essays on Biblical Greek, i.—iii. (Oxford, 1889); 8. R. Driver,
Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, Intr., p. xxxvi. ff. (Oxford,
1890); A. F. Kirkpatrick, Zhe Divine Library of the O. T.,
Ρ. 63 ff. (London, 1891); Zhe Septuagint Version, in Exposttor,
V. iil., p. 263 ff (London, 1896); T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly
on the original texts of the O. and N. Testaments (London,
1891); A. Loisy, Azstotre critique du texte et des versions de
la Bible (Amiens, 1892); H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T.
Greek, or the Influence of the LXX. on the vocatulary of the
NV. T. (Edinburgh, 1895).

Gs eS ap ὖς

INFLUENCE OF THE LXX. ON CHRISTIAN
LITERATURE.

1. THE Church inherited from the Hellenistic Synagogue
an entire confidence in the work of the Alexandrian trans-
lators. It was a treasure common to Jew and Christian, the
authorised Greek Bible to which at first both appealed. When
after the beginning of the second century a distrust of the
LXX. sprang up among the Jews’, Christian teachers and
writers not unnaturally clung to the old version with a growing
devotion. They pleaded its venerable age and its use by the
Evangelists and Apostles ; they accepted and often embellished
the legend of its birth?, and, following in the steps of Philo,
claimed for it an inspiration not inferior to that of the original.
When the divergences of the Septuagint from the current
Hebrew text became apparent, it was argued that the errors
of the Greek text were due to accidents of transmission, or
that they were not actual errors, but Divine adaptations of
the original to the use of the future Church.

Iren. ill, 21. 3 “quum...Deus...servavit nobis simplices
scripturas in Aegypto...in qua et Dominus noster servatus est...
et haec earum scripturarum interpretatio priusquaam Dominus
noster descenderet facta sit et antequam Christiani osten-

derentur interpretata sit...vere impudorati et audaces ostenduntur
qui nunc volunt aliter interpretationes facere, quando ex ipsis

1 See above, p. 30f.
2 See above, p. 13f.

Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 463 |

scripturis arguantur a nobis...etenim apostoli quum sint his
omnibus vetustiores, consonant praedictae interpretationi, et
interpretatio consonat apostolicae traditioni. etenim Petrus et
Ioannes et Matthaeus et Paulus et reliqui deinceps et horum
sectatores prophetica omnia ita annuntiaverunt quemadmodum
Seniorum interpretatio continet. unus enim et idem Spiritus Dei
qui in prophetis quidem praeconavit...in Senioribus autem inter-
pretatus est bene quae bene prophetata fuerant. Cyril. Hieros.
ΩΦ ΙΝ 23 fx; ἀναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφάς, τὰς εἴκοσι δύο! βίβλους
τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης ταύτας, τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ἑρμηνευ-
τῶν ἑρμηνευθείσας.. «οὐ yap εὑρεσιλογία καὶ κατασκευὴ σοφισμάτων
ἀνθρωπίνων ἢ ἦν τὸ γινόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ τῶν ἁγίῳ
πνεύματι λαληθεισῶν θείων γραφῶν ἑρμηνεία συνετελεῖτο. Chrys.
zn Matt. hom. v. TOV ἄλλων μᾶλλον ἁπάντων τὸ ἀξιόπιστον οἱ
ἑβδομήκοντα ἐ ἔχοιεν ἂν δικαίως. οἱ μὲν γὰρ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ
παρουσίαν ἡρμήνευσαν, Ἰουδαῖοι μείναντες, καὶ δικαίως ἂν ὑπο-
πτεύοιντο ἅτε ἀπεχθείᾳ μᾶλλον εἰρηκότες, καὶ τὰς προφητείας
συσκιάζοντες ἐπίτηδες" οἱ δὲ ἑβδομήκοντα πρὸ ἑκατὸν ἢ καὶ
πλειόνων ἐτῶν τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίας ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἐλθόντες καὶ
τοσοῦτοι ὄντες πάσης τοιαύτης εἰσὶν ὑποψίας ἀπηλλαγμένοι. καὶ διὰ
τὸν χρόνον καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ διὰ τὴν συμφωνίαν μᾶλλον ἂν εἶεν
πιστεύεσθαι δίκαιοι. Hieron. ef. xxxiil. (ada Pammach.): ‘‘iure
LXX. editio obtinuit in ecclesiis vel quia prima fuit et ante
Christi facta adventum, vel quia ab Apostolis...usurpata” ; praef.
zx Paralip. “si LXX. interpretum pura et ut ab eis in Graecum
versa est editio permaneret, superflue me...impelleres ut
Hebraea volumina Latino sermone transferrem.” Aug. de doctr.
Chr. 22 “‘ qui (LXX. interpretes) iam per omnes peritiores ecclesias
tanta praesentia Sancti Spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur ut os
unum tot hominum fuisse...quamobrem, etiamsi aliquid aliter in
Hebraeis exemplaribus invenitur quam isti posuerunt, cedendum
esse arbitror divinae dispositioni quae per eos facta est...itaque
fieri potest ut sic illi interpretati sint quemadmodum congruere
Gentibus ille quieos agebat...Spiritus S. indicavit.” (Cf. guaest.
in Heft. i. 169, vi. 19; 2” Ps. cxxxv.; de civ. Det viii. 44.)

2. Under these circumstances the Septuagint Version of
the Old Testament necessarily influenced the literature and
thought of the Ancient Church in no ordinary degree. How
largely it is quoted by Greek Christian writers of the first
four centuries has already been shewn*. But they were not
content to cite it as the best available version of the Old

1 See above, p. 219 ff.
Pari WS δ οἷ

464 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.

Testament ; they adopted without suspicion and with tenacity
its least defensible renderings, and pressed them into the
service of controversy, dogma, and devotion. This remark
applies also in effect to the Latin Christian writers before Jerome,
who were generally dependent on a literal translation based
upon the Greek Bible’. To Tertullian and Cyprian, as well
as to Clement and Barnabas, Justin” and Irenaeus, the Septua-
gint was the Old Testament authorised by the Church, and no
appeal lay either to any other version or to the original. Nor
was this tradition readily abandoned by the few who attained
to some knowledge of Hebrew. Origen, while recognising the
divergence of the Lxx. from the Hebrew, and endeavouring
to reconcile the two by means of the Hexapla*, was accustomed
to preach and comment upon the ordinary Greek text®. He
even builds his system of interpretation on the Lxx. rendering
of Prov. xxil. 20°. Jerome was long in reaching his resolve to
adopt the Hebrew text as the basis of his new Latin version,
and when at length he did so, his decision exposed him to
obloquy®. Augustine, while sympathising with Jerome’s pur-
pose, thought it a doubtful policy to unsettle the laity by
lowering the authority of the Lxx.’

The following examples of Christian interpretation based upon
the Lxx. will shew how largely that version influenced the

1 See above, p. 87 ff.

* Justin occasionally adopts a rendering preferred by his Jewish an-
tagonists, or does not press the rendering of the Lxx. But he makes this
concession only where the alternative does not affect his argument; see
Dial. 124, 131.

3 See above, p. 60 ff.

4 Comm. in Cant. i. 344, ‘‘tamen nos LXX. interpretum scripta per
omnia custodimus, certi quod Spiritus Sanctus mysteriorum formas obtectas
inesse voluit in scripturis divinis.”

5 See below, p. 468.

6 See his Preface to the Gospels, addressed to Damasus.

7 Aug. Zp. ii. 82, § 35. He deprecates the change of cucurdita into
hedera in Jon. iii. 6 ff. on the ground that the Lxx. doubtless had good
reasons for translating the Hebrew word by κολόκυνθα : ‘‘non enim frustra
hoc puto LXX. posuisse, nisi quia et huic simile sciebant.”

Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 465

hermeneutics of the Ancient Church. The exegesis is often
obviously wrong, and sometimes it is even grotesque ; but it
illustrates the extent to which the authority of the Lxx. became
a factor in the thought and life of the Church both in ante-
Nicene and early post-Nicene times. A careful study of these
passages will place in the hands of the young student of patristic
literature a key which may unlock many of his difficulties.

Gen. i. 2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἢν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. Iren. i. 18. I
τὸν ἀόρατον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἀπόκρυφον αὐτῆς μηνύοντα εἰπεῖν Ἢ δὲ γῆ κτλ.
Tert. dapé. 3 “(aqua) plurima suppetit, et quidem a primordio...
terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita...solus liquor dignum

vectaculum Deo subiciebat.” ii. 2 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ. Tren. v.
28. 3 φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι ἡ συντέλεια αὐτῶν TO |S ἔτος ἐστί. iv. 7 οὐκ

ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς κτλ. Iren. iii. 23. 4 “Cain quum accepisset
consilium a Deo uti quiesceret in eo quod non recte divisisset
eam quae erga fratrem erat communicationem...non solum non
acquievit, sed adiecit peccatum super peccatum” ; cf. iv. 18. 3.
Xiv. 14 npidunoev...déka καὶ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριακοσίους (cod. Ὁ). Barn.
9. 8 μάθετε ὅτι τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ πρώτους, Kal διάστημα ποιήσας λέγει
τριακοσίους: τὸ δεκαοκτὼ (IH) ἔχεις Ἰησοῦν" ὅτι δὲ ὁ σταυρὸς ἐν τῷ Τ
ἤμελλεν ἔχειν τὴν χάριν λέγει καὶ τριακοσίους (T). Cf. Clem. ΑΙ.
strom. vi. 11. Hil. ἐγ. 86. Ambr. de fide i. 2γο. xxxi. 13 ἐγώ
εἰμι ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τόπῳ θεοῦ (DE). Just. Dial. 58 (cf. 60).
xlviii. 14 ἐπέβαλεν... ἐναλλὰξ τὰς χεῖρας. Tert. daft. 8 “sed est
hoc quoque de vetere sacramento quo nepotes suos...intermutatis
manibus benedixerit et quidem ita transversim obliquatis in se,
ut Christum deformantes iam tunc portenderent benedictio-
nem in Christum futuram.” Xlix. 10 οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἄρχων ἐξ
Ἰούδα καὶ ἡγούμενος κτλ. Justin Dal. 52 οὐδέποτε ἐν τῷ γένει ὑμῶν
ἐπαύσατο οὔτε προφήτης οὔτε ἄρχων....μέχρις οὗ οὗτος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
καὶ γέγονε καὶ ἔπαθεν (οἴ. Ζό. 120). Iren. iv. 10. 2 “inquirant enim...
id tempus in quo defecit Arinceps e¢ dux ex luda et qui est
gentium spes...et invenient non alium nisi Dominum nostrum
Iesum Christum annuntiatum.” Cypr. fest. 1. 21. Eus. dem. ev.
i. 4. Cyril. H. xii. 17 σημεῖον οὖν ἔδωκε τῆς Χριστοῦ παρουσίας τὸ
παύσασθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν Ιουδαίων. εἰ μὴ νῦν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίους εἰσίν,
οὔπω ἦλθεν ὁ Χριστός: εἰ ἔχουσι τὸν ἐκ γένους Ἰούδα καὶ τοῦ
Δαβίδ, οὔπω ἦλθεν ὁ προσδοκώμενος.

Exod. xvi. 36 τὸ δὲ γόμορ τὸ δέκατον τῶν τριῶν μέτρων ἦν.
Clem. Al. s¢vom. 11. 11 ἐν ἡμῖν γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρία μέτρα, τρία κριτήρια
μηνύεται, atc Onors...Adyos...vovs. XVil. 16 ἐν χειρὶ κρυφαίᾳ πολεμεῖ
Κύριος ἐπὶ ᾿Αμαλὴκ ἀπὸ γενεῶν εἰς γενεάς. Just. Dial. 49 νοῆσαι
δύνασθε ὅτι κρυφία δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ γέγονε τῷ σταυρωθέντι Χριστῷ.
Iren. ill. 16. 4 “occulte quidem sed potenter manifestans,
quoniam absconsa manu expugnabat Dominus Amalech.”
XXX1li. 19 καλέσω ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Κυρίου ἐναντίον cov (AF). Amb.

Ἐπὶ δ: 30

466 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.

de Sp. s. i. 13 “Dominus ergo dixit quia in nomine 500 vocabit
Dominum ; Dominus ergo et Patris est nomen et Filii.”

Lev. iv. 5 6 ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστός. Tert. daft. 7 “ Aaron a Moyse
unctus est, unde Christus dicitur a chrismate, quod est unctio,
quae Domino nomen accommodavit. ᾿

Num. xxiii. 19 οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος 6 θεὸς διαρτηθῆναι οὐδὲ ὡς υἱὸς
ἀνθρώπου ἀπειληθῆναι. Cypr. 2657. ii. 20 [under the heading
“Quod cruci illum fixuri essent Iudaei”]. xxiv. 17 ἀνατελεῖ
ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακώβ, καὶ ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ἰσραήλ. Eus. dem.
ev. i. 3,6. Cypr. Zest. il. 10 [under the heading, “ Quod et homo
et Deus Christus,” &c.].

Deut. xxviii. 66 ἔσται ἡ ζωή σου κρεμαμένη ἀπέναντι τῶν
ὀφθαλμῶν σου... καὶ οὐ πιστεύσεις τῇ ζωῇ σου. Tert. (Jud. 11)
quotes this as “Ervit vita tua pendens in ligno ante oculos tuos;
et non credes vitae tuae,” explaining the words of the “signi
sacramentum...in quo vita hominibus praestruebatur, in quo
Judaei non essent credituri.” Cf. Cyril H. xiii. 19 ὅτι ἡ ζωὴ
ἦν ἡ ἐπὶ TOU ξύλου κρεμασθεῖσα Μωσῆς ἀποκλαιόμενός φησι κτλ.
XxXxii. 8 ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. Justin
(deal. 131) cites the last three words as kK. ἀριθμοὺς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ,
adding οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα ἐξηγήσαντο ὅτι Ἔστησεν ὅ. ἐθνῶν κ. ἀριθμὸν
ayy: θεοῦ: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ καὶ ex τούτου πάλιν οὐδέν μοι ἐλαττοῦται ὁ
λόγος, τὴν ὑμετέραν ἐξήγησιν eirov. Iren. iii. 12. 9; quoting the
LXX., comments: “populum autem qui credit Deo iam non
esse ‘sub angelorum potestate.”

Jos. v. 3 ἐποίησεν Ἰησοῦς μαχαίρας πετρίνας ἀκροτόμους καὶ
περιέτεμεν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ. Tert. Jud. 9 “circumcisis nobis
petrina acie, id est, Christi praeceptis (petra enim Christus multis
modis et figuris praedicatus est). ‘

3 Regn. Xxii. 38 ameviypay τὸ αἷμα ἐπὶ τὴν κρήνην Σαμαρείας...
καὶ ai πόρναι ἐλούσαντο ἐν τῷ αἵματι : Amb. de SP. 5. 1.16 “Π46]15 δὰ
puteum (Gen. xxiv. 62), infidelis ad lacum (Jer. il. 13)...meretrices
in lacu Jezabel se cruore laverunt.”

Ps, ii. 12 δράξασθε παιδείας. ΟΥΡ. Zest. il. 66 “adprehendite
disciplinam” {under the heading “ Disciplinam Dei in ecclesias-
ticis praceptis observandam”]. iv. 7 ἐσημειώθη ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς
τοῦ προσώπου gov. Amb. de Sp. I. 14 “quod est ergo /umen
stgnatum nisi illius signaculi spiritalis 27 750 credentes stgnatt
(inquit) estis Spiritu promissionis sancto}, Vi. 6 ἐν δὲ τῷ ἅδῃ
τίς ἐξομολογήσεταί σοι; Cypr. dest. iii. 114 [under the heading
“Dum in carne est quis, exhomologesin (cf. Stud. Bzbl. iv. 282,
290 ἢ.) facere debere”]. ix. tit. εἰς τὸ τέλος. Hil. ad doc. “ intel-
legendum quotiens qui titulos habent im fine, non praesentia in
his sed ultima contineri.” Ib. ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων τοῦ υἱοῦ. Orig.
ad loc. κρύφιά ἐστι γνῶσις ἀπόρρητος τῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀλη-

1 Eph. i. 13.

Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 467

Owod θεοῦ μυστηρίου. Athan. ad loc. λέγει Ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀκαταλήπτων

μυστηρίων τοῦ υἱοῦ. ΧΧΙ. 7. See under Hab. ij. 11. 30 καὶ ἡ
Ψυχή μου αὐτῷ (ῇ. Tren. v. 7.1 “tamquam immortali sub-
Stantia eius existente.” XXxXil. 6 TO λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου... «τῷ πνεύ-

ματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ See Iren. iii. 8. 6) Tent: Prax. rf
Cypm Wase. ol 3,Ambr. ide 7... 50 11. ἘΠ. “Hil 2977." xi. 30.
Xliv. 1 ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου λόγον ἀγαθόν. Tert. Prax. 7
“solus ex Deo genitus, proprie de vulva cordis ipsius secundum
quod et Pater ipse testatur Eructavit cor meum sermonem
optimum.” Mare. il. 4 “adhibet operi bono optimum etiam
ministrum, sermonem suum.” Cf. Cypr. es¢. ii. 3. lxxxvi. 4
μνησθήσομαι Ραάβ. Cyril. H. ll. 9 ὦ μεγάλης τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρω-
πίας καὶ πορνῶν μνημονευούσης ἐν γραφαῖς (the LXX. having
transliterated 27 and 37 alike). CF. Hieron. comm. tn Ps.
ad loc. Ib. 5 Μήτηρ Σειὼν ἐρεῖ ἄνθρωπος, καί ΓΑνθρωπος ἐγε-
νήθη ἐν αὐτῇ, καί Αὐτὸς ἐθεμελίωσεν αὐτὴν ὁ ὕψιστος. Tert. Prax.
27 “invenimus illum directo et Deum et hominem expositum,
ipso hoc psalmo suggerente quoniam Deus homo natus est in
illa, aedificavit eam voluntate Patris”; cf. Marc. iv. 13 “ ‘Mater
Sion’ dicet homo, et ‘homo factus est in illa’ (quoniam Deus
homo natus est),...aedificaturus ecclesiam ex voluntate patris.”
Hieron. comm. in Pss. (ed. G. Morin) ad loc.: “pro ‘mater Sion’
LXX. interpretes transtulerunt: ‘numquid Sion (μὴ τῇ 3.) dicat
homo?’...sed vitiose P litera graeca addita fecit errorem.” Jerome
however retains the interpretation ‘homo Christus,’ which depends
on the LXx. reading ἄνθρωπος. 1xxXvii. 6 ἐν νεκροῖς ἐλεύθερος.
Cyril. Ea. %. 4 οὐκ ἀπομείνας ἐν νεκροῖς, ὡς πάντες ἐν ἅδη, ἀλλὰ
μόνος ἐν νεκροῖς ἐλεύθερος. XCi. 13 δίκαιος ὡς φοίνιξ ἀνθήσει. Tert.
ves. carn. 13 “id est de morte, de funere, uti credas de ignibus
quoque substantiam corporis exigi posse” (cf. Clem. R. 1 Cor. 25;
Lightfoot, p. 85n.). xev. 5 a regremOcs, ταν ἐθνών δαιμόνια.
Just. dial. 55 οἱ θεοὶ τών ἐθνῶν... εἴδωλα δαμονίων εἰσίν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ
θεοί (cf. ib. 79, 83). Iren. iil. 6. 3. Tert. zdololatr. 2ο. Cypr. 2657.
ili. 59. Tb. 10 ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσε [ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου] Just.
σι 45° Deed, 75. ἘΝ ΒΕ Marc, ti 19:5 fad. 10) “age
nunc, si legisti penes prophetam in psalmis: Deus regnavit a
ligno, expecto quid intelligas, ne forte lignarium aliquem regem
significaril putetis et non Christum.” 2d. 13 “unde et ipse David
regnaturum ex ligno dominum dicebat.” Auctor de montibus
Sina et Sion g “Christus autem in montem sanctum ascendit
lignum regni sui.” Cf. Barn. 8 ἡ βασιλεία Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ξύλου.
ΧΟ, 5 προσκυνεῖτε τῷ ὑποποδίῳ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. Ambr. de SP.
δ. lil. 11 “ per scabel/um terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro
Christi quam hodieque in mysteriis adoramus, et quam Apostoli
in Domino Jesu...adorarunt.” Cf. Aug. ad loc. evi. 20 ἀπέστει-

1 See above, p. 424, n., and cf. Deut. xxviii. 66.

30—2

468 Influence of the LX Δ΄. on Christian Literature.

Aev τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰάσατο avrovs. Cypr. ¢est. ii. 3 [under
the heading “Quod Christus idem sit sermo Dei”). ix. 3 ἐκ
γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά oe. Just. afol.i. 45, dial. 32.
Tert. arc. v. 9 “nos edimus evangelia...nocturna nativitate
declarantia Dominum ut hoc sit ante luciferum...nec se
ze edixisset Deus nisi filio vero...cur autem adiecit ex ufero..

ri quia curiosius voluit intellegi in Christum ex 2670 generavi

id, ΘΞΕ ΕΣ 5010 utero sine viri semine ?” Cypr. dest. 1 487.
Cyril H. vii. 2 ἅπερ ἐπὶ ἄνθρωπων ἀναφέρειν πάσης ἀγνωμοσύνης
ἀνάπλεων. xi. 5 τὸ “σήμερον ᾿ (Ps. ii. 7) ἄχρονον, πρὸ πάντων τῶν
αἰώνων: ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου κτλ. Cf. Athan. om ¢. A” iv.
2.7.1:

Prov. viii. 22 Κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ. Just. dial,
61. Iren. iv. 20.3. Tert. Prax. 7. Cypr. zest. 11. 1 [under the
heading Christum...esse sapientiam Det, per quam omnia facta
sunt). Hil. triz. xii. 45 ‘““quaerendum est quid sit natum ante
saecula Deum rursum in initium viarum Dei et in opera
creari.” Cf. Athan. ov zz Ar. ii. 16ff. xxii. 20 wai ov de
ἀπόγραψαι αὐτὰ σεαυτῷ τρισσῶς. Orig. Philoc. ΠΕΣ (de princ. iv.)
οὐκοῦν τριχῶς ἀπογράφεσθαι δεῖ εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν τὰ τῶν ἁγίων
γραμμάτων νοήματα.

Job xl. 14 πεποιημένον ἐνκαταπαίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ.
Applied to the Devil by Cyr. ΗΙ: cat. Vili. 4.

Hos. xii. 4 (A) ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου εὕροσάν pe. Tert. Mare. IV. 39

“per diem in templo docebat ut qui per Osee praedixerat,” &c.
(For the reading of B, cf. Orig. P&zloc. viii. 1.)
Amos ix. 6 ὁ Foe eS eis τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνάβασιν αὐτοῦ. Tert.
Marc. iv. 34 “ aedificantem illisascensum suum in caelum.”

Hab. 11. 11 λίθος ἐκ τοίχου βοήσεται καὶ κάνθαρος ἐκ ξύλου
φθέγξεται αὐτά. Ambr. zz Luc. xxiii. “bonus vermis qui haesit
in ligno (Ps. xxi. 7), bonus scarabaeus qui clamavit e ligno...
clamavit quasi scarabaeus Deus Deus meus”; or. de obitu Theo-
dosit 46 “{Helena] adoravit illum qui pependit in ligno...illum
(inquam) qui sicut scarabaeus clamavit ut persecutoribus suis
Pater peccata donaret.” Hieron. zz Adbac., ad loc. “quidam e
nostris vermem in ligno loquentem illum esse aiunt qui dicit in
Psalmo (xxi. 7) Ego ‘natus sum vermis et non homo.” iii, 2 ἐν
μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ. Tert. Marc. iv. 22 “in medio duo
animalium cognosceris, Moysi et Eliae.” Eus. dem. ev. vi. 15
δύο (was (reading ζωῶν in text) τοῦ προφητευομένου δηλοῦσθαι
ἔφαμεν, μίαν μὲν τὴν ἔνθεον, θατέραν δὲ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην.

Zach. vi. 12 ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ, ᾿Ανατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ. Just. dal. 106,
121. Tert. Valent. 3 “amat figura Spiritus sancti orientem,
Christi figuram.”

Isa. i, 22 οἱ κἀπηλοί σου μίσγουσι τὸν οἶνον ὕδατι. Iren. iv.
12. I “ostendens quod austero Dei praecepto miscerent seniores
aquatam traditionem.” 111, 9 f. οὐαὶ τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτῶν, διότι BeBov-

|

Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 469

λευνται βουλὴν πονηρὰν καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν εἰπόντες Δήσωμεν (115 ap.
Justin., al. ἄρωμεν) τὸν δίκαιον, ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν ἐστιν. Barn.
Ml. ἢ; Just. dial. 17, 133, 130%. Tert. Marc. mi. 22. Cyril ΕἸ, xii. 12.
vii. 14 ἡ παρθένος. Just. dial. 43, 67, 71,84. Iren. ili. 21. 1 ff
Tert. Mare. iii. 13, iv. 10. Cypr. ées¢. ii. 9. Eus. dem. ev. vil. 1.
Cyr. H. xii. 21. ix. 6 μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος. Hil. riz. iv. 23
“qui Angelus Dei dictus est, idem Dominus et Deus est; est
autem secundum prophetam Filius Dei magni constlit angelus.”

X. 23 λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει Κύριος. Tert. Marc. iv. 4
“compendiatum est enim novum testamentum et a legis laciniosis
oneribus expeditum ” (cf.iv.16), Xxx. 4 ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐν Τάνει ἀρχηγοὶ
ἄγγελοι πονηροί. Just. dial. 79 πονηροὺς ἀγγέλους κατῳκηκέναι καὶ
κατοικεῖν λέγει καὶ ἐν Τάνει, τῇ Αἰγυπτίᾳ χώρᾳ. Xlv. 1 οὕτως "λέγει
Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ χριστῷ μου Κύρῳ [read as κυρίῳ]. Barn. ΧΙ]. 11,
Tert. Prax. 28, χε, 7, Cypr. test. τ. 21. Th. 14 καὶ ἐν σοὶ προσ-
εὐξονται. Ambr. dé Sp. s. ul. 8 “in Christo orare nos debere
Deus Pater dicit.” iil. 3 “ἄνθρωπος € ev πληγῇ ὦν. Tert. de carne
Chr. 15. Ib. & τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; Euis. 2. 2::45.2.
liv. 15 προσήλυτοι προσελεύσονταί σοι δι᾿ ἐμοῦ. Ambr. de SA. 5. 11. 9
r Deus Pater ad Filium dicit : Ecce proselyti venient ad Le per

me.” 1%, 17 δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπι-
σκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Iren. iv. 26. 5 τοιούτους πρεσβυτέ-
ρους ἀνατρέφει ἡ ἐκκλησία, περὶ ὧν καὶ προφήτης φησίν Δώσω

κτλ. Cf. Clem. R. 1 Cor. 42. Ilxiii. 1 ἐρύθημα ἱματίων ἐκ Βόσορ.
Hieron. comm. in Isa. ad loc. ‘ ‘quod multi pro errore lapsi putant
de carne (13) Domini intellegi.” Ib. 9 οὐ πρέσβυς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος,
Betas Grantor) Jaen Η3ν.50. 4 “quoniam neque homo
tantum erit qui salvat nos neque sine carne (sine carne enim
angeli sunt).” Tert. Marc. iv. 22 “non legatus, inquit Esaias,
nec nuncius, sed tpse Deus salvos eos factet, ipse iam praedicans
et implens legem et prophetas.”

Jer. xi. 19 δεῦτε Kal ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ. Tert.
Marc. iii. 19 “ utique ‘in corpus’...sic enim Deus in evangelio...
revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans.” Cypr. Zest. li. 20.
Xvii. 9 aes ἐστιν, καὶ τίς γνώσεται αὐτόν; Iren. 111. 18. 3, 19.
ὍΝ 53 αὐ: Lert, carn. Chr. 15, πώ. 14.

Bar. iii. 38 pera τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὠφθη Kai ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
συνανεστράφη. Cyril. Η. xi. 15 βλέπεις θεὸν μετὰ τὴν Μωσέως
νομοθεσίαν ἐνανθρωπήσαντι ; ;

Lam. iv. 20 πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν χριστὸς Κύριος συνελήμφθη
ἐν ταῖς διαφθοραῖς αὐτῶν. Just. apol.i. 55. Iren. ili.1o0. 11. Tert.
Marc. iii. 6 “Christum, spiritum scilicet creatoris, sicut propheta
testatur” &c. Prax. 14 “ergo si Christus personae paternae
spiritus est, merito spiritus cuius persona erat (id est Patris)
eum faciem suam ex unitate scilicet pronuntiavit.” Cyril. H.
xiii. 7, Ambr. de Sf. 5. 1. 9 “et Christus spiritus dicitur quia
Ieremias dixit,” &c.

470 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.

From these specimens it is clear that the Ancient Church
was profoundly influenced by the Greek Old Testament in
a variety of ways. Two may be mentioned here. (1) The
Alexandrian Greek with its daughter-version, the Old Latin,
supplied the basis of a practical interpretation which, notwith-
standing numerous errors of text and of treatment, ministered
to the religious life of the Christian Society. It was from the
LXxX. version and not from the official Hebrew of the Synagogue
that the pre-Hieronymian Church derived her devotional use of
the Old Testament, as it is on the whole the Greek and not the
Hebrew Bible which still supplies the Roman Breviary and the
Anglican Prayer-book with the substance of their liturgical
Psalters. The Alexandrian School based its exegetical work
upon the Lxx., and the errors and obscurities of the version
often yielded materials peculiarly adapted to the requirements
of the allegorists; whilst the School of Antioch was no less
whole-hearted in its devotion to the old Alexandrian version’.
This spirit of loyalty to the Lxx. continued to the age of the
later Greek expositors; it is reflected in the catenae, and it
fundamentally affects the traditional interpretation of the Old
Testament throughout the orthodox East. Even in the West,
through the spread of the Greek exegesis, and the use of the
Old Latin version by the earlier Latin fathers, it has acquired a
predominant influence. Thus, for good or for evil, the popular
interpretation of the O.T. has been moulded by the Lxx.
rather than by the Hebrew text. (2) The Lxx. supplied the
Ancient Church with controversial weapons at two great crises
in her history—during the early struggle with the rival forces
of Monotheism, Judaism, Marcionism, and the various schools
of Gnosticism, and in the long conflict with Arianism. Arians

1 For Chrysostom’s use of the LXx. see F. H. Chase, Chrysostom: a
study in the history of Biblical Interpretation, p. 28 ff. (Cambridge, 1887) ;
and for Theodore of Mopsuestia, cf. ΗΠ. Kihn, 7%. v. Mops., p. 87 ff. (Frei-
burg i. B., 1880).

Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 471

as well as Catholics appealed to the Alexandrian version.
Thus Arius did not hesitate to argue from Joel 11. 25, LXxx.
(ἡ ἀκρὶς Kal...y κάμπη ἡ δύναμίς μου ἡ μεγάλη) that the Son
is the Power of God in no higher sense than any other agency
by which great effects are wrought upon the face of nature’.
Both parties had recourse to Prov. vill. 22, where the Lxx.
rendering of °232 by ἔκτισέν με seemed to Arius to justify the
statement that the Logos Himself had a beginning of existence,
like the created universe®. Unconvincing as such arguments
are now, they had an overwhelming weight in the fourth
century, and Hilary speaks as if the cause of orthodoxy might
be saved by wresting this crucial passage out of the hands of
the Arians (de Zrin. xii. “hic hiemis eorum maximus fluctus
est, haec tortuosa turbinis gravis unda est, quae excepta a
nobis et securo navigio infracta, usque ad ipsum nos tutis-
simum portum optati litoris prosequetur”). Neither the con-
troversies of the second nor those of the fourth century can
be fully understood without an appreciation of the place which
the Greek Old Testament occupied in the thought and lan-
guage of the Ancient Church.

3. Familiarity with the Lxx. is not less essential to the
student of the devotional life of the Early Church. The Greek
Liturgies, especially perhaps in the oldest parts, are steeped
in the language of the Greek Old Testament. (a) The prayers
of the Psalter are worked into their text, often with little or
no change; e.g. St Clement (B. 5)* δὸς αὐτοῖς καρδίαν καινὴν
kal πνεῦμα εὐθὲς ἐγκαίνισον ἐν τοῖς ἐγκάτοις αὐτῶν (Ps. 1]. 12);
22. (Β. 8) καὶ ἀποδώσῃ αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀγαλλίασιν τοῦ σωτηρίου καὶ
πνεύματι ἡγεμονικῷ στηρίσῃ αὐτούς (Ps. 1. 14); St James (B. 37)

an ε Ν Ν 4 > 3 4 Ν ig
σῶσον ὃ θεὸς τὸν λαόν σου καὶ εὐλόγησον τὴν κληρονομίαν σου

i Fragment of the 7hadia, in Athan. or. ε. Ar. i. 6.

2 Jb. ἀρχὴν Tod κτίζεσθαι ἔσχε καὶ αὐτός.

3 The references are to the pages of Mr Brightman’s Liturgies, Eastern
and Western, i. (Oxford, 1896).

472 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.

(Ps. xxvil. g)'; 26. (B. 55) ἐπιλαβοῦ ὅπλου καὶ θυρεοῦ καὶ
ἀνάστηθι εἰς τὴν βοήθειάν μου (Ps. χχχῖν. 2); S¢ Mark (B. 117)
ἐξαπόστειλον τὸ φῶς σου καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου (Ps. Χ]Π. 3)... καὶ
ταχὺ προκαταλαβέτωσαν ἡμᾶς οἱ οἰκτειρμοί σου, Κύριε (Ps.
Ixxviil. 8). (6) Many of their magnificent addresses to God
and to Christ are from the Lxx. e.g. St Clement (B. 12)
Κύριε παντοκράτωρ, ὕψιστε, ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν, ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίοις
ἀναπαυόμενε, ἄναρχε, μόναρχε (Isa. lvil. 15 + 3 Mace. il. 2);
ib. (B. 24) ὃ μέγας, ὃ μεγαλώνυμος (Jer. xxxix. 19); St James
(B. 44) ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν καὶ τὰ ταπεινὰ ἐφορῶν (Ps.
ex. 5 f.); St MlZark (B. 137) ὃ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβίμ.
(Ps. Ixxix. 2); Savapion (J. Th. St. 1.) θεὲ τῆς ἀληθείας (Ps.
xxx. 6); τῶν δυνάμεων (Ps. lvill. 6); τῶν πνευμάτων (Num.
Xvi. 22). (c) Passing allusions are made to the Lxx., some-
times difficult to explain without its aid, eg. S¢ Clement
(B. 6) ὃ τὸν ἀνθρωποκτόνον ὄφιν δεσμώτην παραδοὺς ἡμῖν ws
στρουθίον παιδίοις (cf. Job xl. 14); 72. (B. 15) λόγον θεὸν
...ayyedov τῆς μεγάλης βουλῆς σου (Isa. ix. 6); St James
(B. 55) τῶν τὸ ἁγιόν cov θυσιαστήριον κυκλούντων διακόνων
(Ps. xxv. 6); 26. (Β. 57) ἐν χώρᾳ ζώντων (Ps. cxiv. 9); St Mark
(B. 126) εἰσόδους καὶ ἐξόδους ἡμῶν ἐν πάσῃ εἰρήνη κατακόσμησον
(ἃ Regn. xxix. 6: Ps. cxx. 8); 2b. (B. 133) ἐξ €roimov ΣΝ
κητηρίου σου (Exod. xv. 17; 3 Regn. vil. 39 ff); St Basil
(B. 335) ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἀπηλπισμένων (Judith ix. 11); Sarapion:
ὁ θανατῶν καὶ ζωογονῶν (1 Regn. 1. 6) (4) Much of the
technical phraseology of the Liturgies is from the LxXx.: e.g.
τὰ ἅγια (Lev. xxil. 2), ἀναφορά (Num. iv. 19), dwpa (Gen. iv. 4),
θυσία (Gen. iv. 3), λειτουργία (Exod. xxxvil. 19), θυσία (Gen.
iv. 3), πρόθεσις (Exod. xxxix. 18), προκείμενα (Lev. xxiv. 7),
mpoopopa (3 Regn. vil. 34), τελειοῦν (Exod. xxix. 9). (e) The
same is true with regard to some of the oldest Eucharistic
formulae, e.g. the Preface and Sanctus’ which are based on

1 Cf. St Basil (B. 311).
2 The composite quotation in Clem. R. 1 Cor. xxxiv. (Dan. vii. 10+

Influence of the LXX. on Christian Literature. 473

Isa. vi. 2—3, the Ayvze eletson (Psalms, passim), the Gustate
(Cyril H. myst. v. 20)’.

4. The Greek terminology of Christian Doctrine is largely
indebted to the Alexandrian translators. It is true that in
this case most of the technical language of theology has passed
through the New Testament and received there a fuller prepa-
ration for the use of the Church: and the influence of Greek
philosophy and of Gnostic speculation must also be borne
in mind by the student of the language of dogma. But it
is perhaps even more important that he should trace it back
to its source in the Greek Old Testament, which was far more
familiar to Christian teachers of the first three centuries than
the writings of Plato or of the schools of Basileides and
Valentinus. The patristic use of such terms as ἄδης, ἀνάστασις,
εἰκών, ἐκκλησία, ἐφόδιον, θυσία, θυσιαστήριον, Κύριος, λόγος,
μονογενής, ξύλον, οὐσία, παντοκράτωρ, παντοδύναμος, παράδεισος,
πνεῦμα ἅγιον, πίστις, προσφορά, σάρξ, σοφία, ὑπόστασις, φύσις,
φώς, χάρις, can best be understood by the student who begins
by investigating their use in the Septuagint.

Indirectly, but not less extensively, the earliest Latin
theology drew a store of theological language from the Lxx.
Such words as aeternalis, altare, benedictio, congregatio, con-
verti, Mdaemonium, eleemosyna, exomologesis, glorificare, hostia,
zustitia, misericordia, oblatio, propitiatio, sacerdos, sacrificium,
salvare, testamentum, unicus, viaticum, are examples which
might easily be multiplied. In the case of some of these
terms (e.g. sacerdos = episcopus, sacrificium =eucharistia) the
choice contributed largely to the development of doctrine, and
it is reasonable to suppose that they entered the vocabulary

Isa. vi. 3) is probably an echo of an early Roman Preface. A reference to
Dan. /.c. in the same connexion is not uncommon; cf. S¢ Clement (B. 18),
St Mark (B. 131), Sarapion (/. 7%. St. i. 1, p. 108).

1 To these may perhaps be added the “A ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε (cf. Clem.
R. /.c.). On Ayrte eleison see a paper by Mr Edm. Bishop, in the Downside
Review, 1899—1900 (published separately by Walters, Weston-super-mare).

474 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.

of the Western Church through the Latin version of the
Septuagint, and not directly from Pagan use. It is noteworthy
that Cyprian, whose own style has been said to shew “small
respect for the language of the Latin Bible’,” persistently used
these O. T. words in reference to the Christian ministry and
the Eucharistic offering.

5. One great monument of ancient Christianity, which
still exercises a direct influence over the vast Latin com-
munion, seemed at one time likely to serve as a counteracting
force to the Septuagint. It was the deliberate purpose of
Jerome to set aside in the West the authority of a daughter-
version of the Lxx., and to establish in its place, by means
of his new Latin Bible, that of the official Hebrew text.
Nevertheless, through a variety of causes, the Vulgate, as it
is now read by the Latin Church, perpetuates many of the
characteristic features of the Lxx. (a) The Psalter of the Vul-
gate, as we have seen, is taken from Jerome’s second revision of
the Old Latin, and not from his Psalterium Hebraicum, or trans-
lation of the Hebrew text; and the books of Wisdom, Sirach,
Baruch, and 1, 2 Maccabees, are given in the Old Latin
forms*, (ὁ) The rest of the Old Testament retains, in
the Clementine Vulgate, numerous traces of Septuagint read-
ings and renderings. A few examples may be given: Gen.
111. 15 “tu insidiaberis (τηρήσεις) calcaneo eius”; iv. 8 “ dixit-
que Cain ad Abel fratrem eius Egrediamus foras” (διέλθωμεν
eis TO πεδίον); vi. 5 ‘‘non permanebit (ov μὴ καταμείνῃ)
Spiritus meus in homine”; xlix. 10 “ipse erit expectatio
(προσδοκία) gentium”; Num. xxiv. 24 “‘vastabuntque He-
braeos”; Isa. vii. 14 ‘‘ecce virgo concipiet”; Lam. iv. 20
‘Spiritus oris nostri Christus dominus”; Zech. iil. 8 ‘‘ad- |
ducam servum meum Orientem” (Ανατολήν). It must indeed

1 E. W. Watson, in Studia Biblica, p. 194 f.
2 See above, pp. 98 f., 103.

Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 475

be remembered that loans from the Lxx. are not always of
Jerome’s borrowing; some of them have made their way into the
text of the Vulgate during the course of its transmission (see
Vercellone, Variae lectiones vulgatae Latinae bibliorum editionum,
Il. p. vul sqq.). But they hold their place in the authorised
Latin Bible of the West, and represent there to this day
the influence of the Alexandrian Greek version. (¢) Many
of the words of the Vulgate are more or less complete trans-
literations of the Greek words used by the Lxx. in the same
contexts, survivals in great part from the O. L., where they
had familiarised themselves to Latin ears’. Thus we have
arceuthinus (2 Chr. 11. 8), azyma, azymi¢ (Gen. xix. 3, Exod.
ΧΙ. 8), dlasphemare (Lev. xxiv. 11), cartallus (Deut. xxvi. 2),
cataplasmare (Isa. xXxxvill. 21), cauma (Job xxx. 30), choero-
gryllus (Lev. xi. 5), christus (1 Regn. il. 10), chytropus (Lev.
Xl. 35), cedaris (Lev. xvi. 4), creagra (2 Chr. iv. 11), doma
(Jer. xix. 13), ecclesta (1 Regn. xvil. 47), gazophylacium (Ezech.
xl. 17), Aolocaustum (Lev. i. 3), daganum (Exod. xxix. 23),
latomus (3 Regn. v. 15), Zuter (3 Regn. vii. 17 = 30), xaulum
(Jon. 1. 3), 2ycticorax (Deut. xiv. 17), sabbatum (Exod. xvi. 23),
synagoga (Num. xxvil. 21), c¢heristrum (Gen. Xxxxvili. 14),
thymiama (Exod. xxx. 1), zelotes (Exod. xx. 5), szelotypia
(Num. v.15). If we turn to the books which are directly derived
from the O. L., such forms are of course even more numerous ;
it is enough to specify acedtarz (Sir. vi. 26), acharis (Sir. xx.
19= 21), allophyli (Ps. lv. 1), artaba (Bel 2), decachordus (Ps.
xcl. 4), diplois (Ps. cvill. 29), eleemosyna (Tob. xi. 14 = 22),
Ludaismus (2 Macc. vill. 1), neomenta (Ps. Ιχχχ. 4), palatha
(Judith x. 5), pentapolis (Sap. x. 6), poderis (Sap. xviii. 24),
rhomphaea (Sir. xxi. 4), tympanistria (Ps. Ixvii. 26), zelare
(Ps. Ixxi. 3). Several of these words belong to ordinary post-
Augustan Latin, but their use in the Vulgate may fairly be

1 Cf. Kaulen, Handbuch zur Vulgata (Mainz, 1870), pp. 83 ff., 130 f.,
1809 ff.

476 Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature.

ascribed to the influence of the Lxx., usually through the O. L.
The same may be said of many Vulgate reproductions of
Hebrew names, e.g. MMJoyses, Balaam, Gomorrha, Gabaon,
Terusalem, Pharao, where the Lxx. spelling or pronunciation
has been retained, no doubt because of its familiarity.

The influence of the other Greek versions over Jerome’s
great work, if less subtle and widely diffused, has been more
direct, and in the matter of interpretation more important.
Thus it was from Aquila that Jerome borrowed the following
readings’: Exod. il. 5 2 papyreone (A. ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παπυρεῶνος) ;
Deut. xxxili. 12 guasi in thalamo morabitur (A. παστώσει) ;
Job xiv. 12 donec atteratur caelum (7A. ἕως ἂν κατατριβῇ ὃ
οὐρανός) ; Amos il. 13 ego stridebo subter vos, sicut stridet plaus-
trum (A. τριζήσω.. τρίζει) ; Jer. xlix. (xxix.) 19 ad pulcritudinem
robustam (A. πρὸς εὐπρέπειαν στερεάν). His debts to Sym-
machus are still more numerous, and only a few can be given
here? ; Num. xxv. 8 27 lupanar (3%. εἰς τὸ πορνεῖον) ; Jos. x. 42
uno cepit impetu (3%. ἠχμαλώτευσεν μιᾷ ὁρμῇ); Jud. xv. 19
molarem dentem (%. τὴν μύλην) ; τ Regn. ix. 24 guia de industria
servatum est tibi (&. ὅτι ἐπίτηδες τετήρηταί σοι); 4 Regn. 1]. 14
ubi est Dominus deus Eliae etiam nunc ? (3%. καὶ νῦν) ; Isa. liv. 8
in momento indignationis (=. ἐν ἀτόμῳ ὀργῆς); Ezek. viii. 10
in circuitu per totum (Σ. κύκλῳ διόλου). It may be added that
not a few of the Greek words retained in the Vulgate are from
the later versions and not from the Lxx. ; e.g. grabatus (Amos
ili. 12, °A.), Zaicus (1 Regn. xxi. 4, A. 3. @.), Zecythus (3 Regn.
xvii. 12 ff.), ¢ristegum (Gen. vi. τό, &.).

The subject is too large to be adequately handled in a single
chapter. But enough has been said to indicate the nature
and extent of the influence which the Greek versions and
the Septuagint in particular have exercised over Christian
thought and letters, both in East and West, and the conse-

1 Field, Hexapla, i., p. xxiv.
* For other exx. see Field, of. ci¢., Ὁ. xxxiv.

Influence of the LX X. on Christian Literature. 477

quent importance of these translations for the student of eccle-
siastical history and literature. Bishop Pearson’s judgement
as to the serviceableness of the Lxx. to patristic students will
always remain true: “si Graecos patres consulueris, quis eos
de rebus divinis disserentes intelliget, qui normam quam
semper in animo dum scriberent habuere non ante cognitam
atque perspectam habeat?...sed ad Latinos patres non minus
quam Graecos recte intelligendos Lxx. viralis versio frequens
utilis est, imo necessaria’.” He might have added that in
the Latin Christendom of to-day the influence of the Greek
versions is not extinct; the echoes of their text, their ren-
derings, and their interpretations are still to be heard in the
Bible, the worship, and the theology of the Western Church.

LITERATURE (on the general subject of the chapter). J.
Pearson, Pracfatio paraenetica ad V. 7. Graecum (ed. E.
Churton, Cambridge, 1855), H. Hody, de Bibliorum textibus, 111.
111. sqq. J. G. Rosenmiller, Historia interpretationis librorum
σας. tn ecclesia Christiana (1795—1814). W. R. Churton, Zhe
influence of the Septuagint version upon the progress of Christt-
anity (Cambridge, 1861). F. W. Farrar, Hzstory of Interpreta-
tions (London, 1886). A. F. Kirkpatrick, Zhe Septuagint Version
(in Expositor, V. vi. 1896).

1 Praef. paraen., ed. E. Churton, p. 25 f.

CHAPTER: VI.

TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE LXX., AND
PROBLEMS ARISING OUT OF IT.

1. WHEN the work of the Seventy-two had been accom-
plished, the Jews of Alexandria (so the legend goes) were
bidden to invoke curses, after their manner, upon any who
should dare to add to the version or take from it, or alter it
in other ways (Aristeas ad fin.: ἐκέλευσαν διαράσασθαι, καθὼς
ἔθος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, εἴ τις διασκευάσει προστιθεὶς ἢ μεταφέρων τι TO
σύνολον τῶν γεγραμμένων ἢ ποιούμενος ἀφαίρεσιν). The impre-
cation, it has been acutely observed, may point to an early
deterioration of the text of the Greek Pentateuch, which the
Pseudo-Aristeas desired to check. ‘This inference is insecure,
for the story is sufficiently explained by a reference to such
passages as Deut. iv. 2, xii. 32°; but it is certain that textual
corruption began before the Christian era. ‘There are traces
of it in the writings of Philo, which cannot be due to blunders
in Philo’s own text.

E.g. in guzs ver. div. her. 56 Philo quotes Gen. xv. 15 in the
form now universal in MSS. of the LXX. (μετ᾽ εἰρήνης τραφεὶς
ev γήρει καλῷ), adding the comment: οὐκοῦν,. τὸ τέλειον γένος...
εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἐλευθερίᾳ βεβαιοτάτη ἐντρεφόμενον κτλ. This is
perhaps the most convincing example, but we may add Gen.
xvi. 14 Bapad=ev κακοῖς (de fug. 38), i.e. Bapax (Luc.); xxi. 6 οὐ
xapetrai μοι (de mut. nont. 24, where however, as in /egg. add.
11. 21, lil. 78, guod det. pot. insid. sol. 33, Cohn and Wendland

read ovyx. μοι with cod. A); Exod. xvii. 6 ἕστηκα πρὸ τοῦ σε
ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας ἐγχωρεῖν (de somn. 11. 32, cf. Β πρὸ τοῦ σε...ἐν

1 Cf. Apoc. xxii. 18 f.

Textual condition of the LX ΑΧ. 479

Χωρήβ, AF πρὸ τοῦ σε ἐλθεῖν...ἐν X.); Num. v. 28 καὶ ἀθῷος
ἔσται ἐκ σπερμάτων εἰς σπέρμα! (leg. all. ili. 51, NBAF
ἐκσπερματιεῖς σπέρμα)". Similar corruptions probably exist in
some of the N. T. citations, e.g. cava? in Heb. x. § (Ps. xxxix.=
xl. 7), and évoyAn* for ἐν χολῇ in Heb. xii. 15 (Deut. xxix. 18
(17)).

Justin, as we have seen’, charges his Jewish contemporaries
with the deliberate excision of numerous passages in the Lxx.
which were favourable to their Christian antagonists (dad. 71
πολλὰς γραφὰς τέλεον περιεῖλον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξηγήσεων TOV γεγενη-
μένων ὑπὸ τῶν παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ γεγενημένων πρεσβυτέρων). But
of the four passages produced in proof of his assertion three
are mere glosses, probably of Christian origin; while the fourth,
a genuine part of the book of Jeremiah (xi. 19), is now found
in all MSS. of the Lxx. The charge, though made in good
faith, seems to have rested on no better foundation than a
natural distrust of the Jews, who in Justin’s time were active
and bitter opponents of the Church. It is equally improbable
that the Greek O.T. was wilfully interpolated by Christians, or
that, if they attempted this, the existing text has been affected
by it to any appreciable extent. A few traces may be found
of the accidental influence of N. T. citations, e.g. the inter-
polation in Ps. xii. 3, and perhaps also the reading σώμα in
Ps. xxxix.; but apart from these, the Septuagint, during the
first two centuries after Christ, suffered little from Christian
hands beyond errors of transcription. What Dr Hort has
written in reference to the N.T. is doubtless true also of the
Lxx.: “accusations of wilful tampering with the text. are...

1 Kis σπέρμα occurs in H. P. 71, which, as Dr Nestle informs me, shews
other signs of affinity to the LXx. text of Philo.

2 It may be added that double renderings already appear in Philo. E.g.
in citing Deut. xix. 14 his MSS. give οἱ πατέρες cov (B) in ae post. Caint 25,
but of πρότεροί σου (A) in ae Justitia 3.

3 As in all our MSS. of Ps. xxxix.

4 See codd. B*AF™ in Deut. /.c.

5 Above, p. 424.

© Chiazal. 120: lren- 1. 21: 1505} Hus. de, cv. Vi. Pp: 257°C, d.

480 Textual condition of the LX X.

not unfrequent in Christian antiquity...but with a single ex-
ception, wherever they can be verified, they prove to be
groundless, being in fact hasty and unjust inferences from
mere diversities of inherited text’.”

Accidental corruptions’, however, and variations of read-
ing and rendering grew apace, and in the third century Origen
complains of the uncertainty of the Biblical text in both its
parts® (comm. in Matt. τ. xv. 14 δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν
ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων εἴτε ἀπὸ
τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων εἴτε καὶ
ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ
adaipovvtwy*). Besides intentional changes he notices else-
where (1) double renderings: Aom. im 1 Regn., 1. 4 “non me
latet...quod in aliquibus exemplaribus habetur erat wir guidam
(ἀνθρωπός τις ἦν; codd. M, 44, &c.), sed in his exemplaribus
quae emendatiora probavimus ita habetur, erat vir unus (A,
ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος eis)”; (2) transpositions: on Jer. xlvil. 4 he
has the note ἡ τῶν οἵ ἔν τισι τόποις μετατεθεῖσα ὥστε τὰ πρῶτα
ὕστερα καὶ τὰ ὕστερα πρῶτα γενέσθαι ; (3) errors of transcription:
in Jer. xv. 10, where most of his copies read, as ours do now,
ὠφέλησα, ὠφέλησεν, he maintains that this reading is a γραφικὸν

1 Tntr. to N.T. in Greek, p. 283. The one exception which Dr Hort
mentions in connexion with the N.T., the excision practised by Marcion,
finds no parallel in the Christian history of the Greek O.T.

2 A good example of corruption in the Greek is to be found in Num,
iii. 24, where all Greek MSS. and the O.L. (Lyons Pentateuch) read Δαήλ

Dael for Aan (x5). The name of Joshua’s father in the Lxx. is Ναυή
(O. L. Mave), probably in the first instance an error for Navy (NATH for
ΝΑΥΝῚ ΞΞ 73. Another well-known instance is the A text of Jud. v. 8
σκέπη νεανίδων σιρομαστῶν ἀνήφθη Kai σιρομάστης, which, as Ewald
pointed out, conceals the doublet (1) σκέπην ἐὰν ἴδω καὶ σιρομάστην,
(2) σκέπη ἐὰν ὀφθῇ καὶ σιρομάστης.

3 Though he is referring especially to MSS. of the N.T. his next words
shew that the remark is meant to include the LxXxX.: τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς
ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν κτλ. (see, for the rest, above,

. 60).
ΕἸ The gravest instance of ἀφαίρεσις was found in the book of Job; see
above, p. 255-

Textual condition of the LXX. 481

ἁμάρτημα for ὠφείλησα ὠφείλησεν. Such faults were specially
common in the case of proper names: 7” Joann, t. vi. 41 τὸ
δ᾽ ὅμοιον περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα σφάλμα πολλαχοῦ τοῦ νόμου καὶ
τῶν προφητῶν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν, ὡς ἠκριβώσαμεν ἀπὸ ᾽᾿ βραίων μαθόντες, |
καὶ τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις αὐτῶν τὰ ἡμέτερα συγκρίναντες.

In these criticisms Origen makes no attempt to distinguish
between supposed errors which are properly textual, and those
which belong to the translation itself. His sole criterion of
error was divergence from the official Hebrew, and he assumed
that all divergences were textual only, the translation having
been originally exact. Nevertheless there can be little doubt
that in the course of four centuries many actual corruptions
such as he describes must have accumulated in the MSS. of
the Lxx. The κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, as the uncorrected MSS. were
called, needed revision, and the literary activity of the third
century endeavoured to supply it. At Caesarea in Palestine,
at Antioch, in Egypt, independent attempts were made to
restore the Septuagint to its primitive purity. But the remedies
which were adopted unhappily increased the disease. ‘‘ The
Hexapla, from its very nature, encouraged the formation of
mixed texts?” ; the Hexaplaric recension, divorced from the
rest of the work, accentuated this tendency, and the other
recensions had a similar effect, although they aimed at the
simpler task of correcting the errors of the κοινή.

2. Of the Hexaplaric, Lucianic, and Hesychian recensions
some account has been given already* In this place we
have only to consider how far it is possible to employ them in
the criticism of the text. Their importance to the critic of the
Lxx. lies in the fact that they were based upon copies of the
κοινή, aS it was read in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt during the

1 In the context Origen refers to the apparent confusion of Γάδαρα and
Tépyeoa in the Gospels.

2 Driver, Samuel, p. xlvii.

3 See above, Part I. c. iii.

5. 5 21

482 Textual condition of the 7, ΧΑ.

third century. But in order to recover from them this un-
revised text, two preliminary tasks have to be undertaken.
The recensions themselves must first, as far as possible, be
restored from existing materials, and we must then proceed
to eliminate from them such elements as are recensional, or
are due to the reviser’s hand.

As to the first of these processes, the materials from
which it is proposed to recover the recensions are fairly
abundant and varied, but there is much uncertainty as to the
attribution of some of them, whilst others present a particular
recension only in certain books or portions of books, or with
more or less of mixture. The principal authorities for each
recension have already been mentioned, but it may be well
to collect them here in a compact form.

Hexzaplaric’. Codd. Ὁ, Μ, Ὁ; 15, 22, 238, 58, 72, 86, 88. 1358. Εἰ Ὁ
138, 139, 161, 248, 249, 250, 252, 255, 256, 258, 259, 264, 268, 273;
Paris Nat. Reg. gr. 129, 181: 132, Ars. 8415, Escurial 3.1. 16,
Leipzig gr. 361, Zurich c. Athos Vatop. 516, Pantocr. 24,
Protaton. 53) ἘΠ Ύ 112» 1 πεαψ α Sahidic (in part), Arme-
nian (in part), Syro-hexaplar.

Lucianic*. Codd. 19, 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 82, 90, 93, 95, 108, 118,
144, 147, 153, 185, 231, 233, 308 ; Paris Coisl. gr. 184, Athens ‘bibl.
nat.44. Versions: Old*Latin, Philoxenian Syriac, Gothic, Arme-
nian (in part), Slavonic. Fathers: Chrysostom, and other writers
of the School of Antioch®.

Flesychian*. Codd. Q, 26, 44, 49, 68, 74, 84, 87, 90, 91, 106,
107, 134, 198, 228, 238, 306. Paris suppl. gr. 609. Versions:
Bohairic, Armenian (in part). Cyril of Alexandria; other Egyp-
tian writers.

The fragments of the Hexapla have been collected by the
labours of a succession of scholars such as P. Morinus, Drusius,
Montfaucon, and especially Field, in whose Ovigents Hexa-
plorum quae supersunt may be found all the remains of

1 For fuller information see pp. 78, 112 ff., 118 ff., 137 f., 140, 148 ff.

2 See pp. 82 ff., 93, 116 ff., 148 ff.

% Lagarde would add (Ankiindigung, p. 27) the writings of the Em-
peror Julian.

4 See pp- 80, 107 ff., 145, 148 ff., and on the recensions generally cf.
Ceriani in Rendiconti α΄, R. 751. Lomb. (18 Feb. 1886).

Textual condition of the LX Χ. 483

Origen’s works which were available in 1875. These editions
do not aim at restoring the text of the Hexaplaric Lxx. in
a connected form. Such a restoration, however, has been
attempted in the case of Lucian’s recension by Lagarde’, who
desired to see a similar work accomplished for the recension
of Hesychius, and an edition in which the two texts should
appear facing one another on opposite pages. When this had
been done, he proposed (1) to eliminate from these any Hexa-
plaric matter, by comparing them with the fragments of Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotion ; and (2) to collect the readings
which departed most widely from the M.T. ΒΥ this process
he hoped that a point of departure would be reached from
which the reconstruction of the Lxx. might begin’.

This scheme is worthy of the great scholar who initiated it,
and it was the first serious effort to grasp the problem of scien-
tific reconstruction. But its progress has been checked and
perhaps finally stopped by its author’s premature death, and
its successful accomplishment under any circumstances was at
least problematical. So long as no MS. or version presents
an unmixed text of either Lucian or Hesychius, and much
uncertainty remains as to the exact sources from which
they are to be recovered, restorations of this kind cannot
be regarded as more than tentative or provisional. Mean-
while, such attempts are not free from danger. Since the
publication of Lagarde’s edition, there has been a tendency
on the part of Biblical students to cite it as ‘Lucian,’ without
reserve. Lagarde himself is careful not to claim finality for
his work; he describes it as ‘“‘editionem...in gravioribus
omnibus satis fidam,” and looks forward to a more exact

1 See above, p. 83 f.

2 An earlier scheme is set forth in Geneszs Graece, Ὁ. 21: ‘‘primum
molior librum e codicum uncialium qui hexaplares non sunt...consensu
haud raro certa coniectura emendando edendum...deinceps propositum est
...editionem hexaplarem curare...tertio loco...adparatum criticum integrum
adiungere cogito.”

31—2

484 Textual condition of the 7, ΧΑ.

representation of Lucian’s text: “conlatis codicibus versioni-
busque eam praebentibus et patrum ea utentibus excussis
efficiendum erit ut etiam in minutioribus adcurate edita
dici merito possit’.” But this hope has not been fulfilled,
and an edition of Lucian which falls short of exactness in
smaller details cannot be directly used for the critical editing
of the Lxx. It has rendered valuable services in other depart-
ments of Biblical study, exhibiting sufficiently the character-
istics of this recension, and repeatedly offering, especially in
the four books of Kingdoms, renderings of a Hebrew text
distinct from {#¥*. But in the delicate task of reconstructing
the Greek text, recourse must be had to the actual evidence
which lies behind Lagarde’s work. For this purpose it would
seem to be more important to provide texts based upon groups
of MSS., somewhat after the manner of the Collection of four
important MSS. (the Ferrar-group) published by DrT. K. Abbott.
Doubtless such groups would mainly follow the lines of the
ancient recensions, but the identification would not be
complete, and the student would have before him not only the
general result, but the whole of the evidence upon which it
was based.

3. Perhaps a more lasting service was rendered to the
textual criticism of the Septuagint by the axioms and principles
which Lagarde’s long study of the problem enabled him to lay
down for the guidance of the student and the future editors.
His early book Anmerkungen sur griechischen Ubersetzung der
Proverbien (1863) starts with the following axioms: (1) Since
the MSS. of the Lxx. are all directly or indirectly the result of
an eclectic process, any attempt to restore the original text
must also proceed on eclectic principles ; and the critic must
chiefly depend upon (a) his acquaintance with the style of the

1 Praef. xv.

* See Driver, Samael, pp. 111. f., lviii.: I. Hooykas, Zets over de griekshe
vertaling van het O.T., p. 12 ff.

Textual condition of the LXX. 485

several translators and (6) his faculty of referring readings to a
Semitic original or, when they are not of Semitic origin,
recognising them as corruptions of the Greek archetype.
(2) Where the critic has to make choice between two readings,
he will do well to prefer (a) a free translation to one which is
slavishly exact, and (4) a translation based upon another
Hebrew text to one which represents the M. T. In the preface
_to his Lucianic Septuagint, published twenty years later, three
principles are asserted: (1) A critical text of the Greek O. T.
cannot be based on the authority of any one MS. or without
regard to the grouping of MSS.; (2) the restoration of the
text common to any one family must not be regarded as more
than a step forward in the right direction ; (3) even a critical
text, when reached by these or other means, will not be free
from the element of uncertainty.

Lagarde’s own words are as follows: Ammerkungen, Ὁ. 3:
“nur-drei axiome schicke ich voraus: I. die manuscripte der
griechischen tibersetzung des alten testaments sind alle entweder
unmittelbar oder mittelbar das resultat eines eklektischen ver-
fahrens: darum muss, wer den echten text wiederfinden will,
ebenfalls eklektiker sein. Sein maasstab kann nur die kenntniss
des styles der einzelnen tbersetzer, sein haupthilfsmittel muss
die fahigkeit sein, die ihm vorkommenden lesarten auf ihr
semitisches original zuriickzufiihren oder aber als original-
griechische verderbnisse zu erkennen. II. wenn ein vers oder
verstheil in einer freien und in einer sklavisch treuen wubertra-
gung vorliegt, gilt die erstere als die echte. III. wenn sich
zwei lesarten nebeneinander finden, von denen die eine den
masoretischen text ausdrickt, die andre nur aus einer von ihm
abweichenden urschrift erklart werden kann, so ist die letztere
fiir urspriinglich zu halten.” Lzbr. V.T. can. 1. p. xvi.: “tenenda
tria esse aio: [1] editionem veteris testamenti graeci curari non
posse ad unius alicuius codicis auctoritatem, sed conlatis inte-
gris codicum familiis esse curandam: nam familiis non accedere
auctoritatem a codicibus, sed codicibus a familiis: [2] unius
alicuius familiae editionem nihil esse nisi procedendi ulterius
adminiculum : [3]errare qui si quando ipsa manus veterum inter-
pretum inventa sit, in ea legenda adquiesci debere perhibeant,
quum conlatis vetera emendandi periculis omnibus indagandum
sit quae explicationis veteris testamenti per quatuor saecula fata

486 Textual condition of the LXX.

fuerint, ut tandem aliquando pateat quam incerta in hoc litera-
rum genere omnia sint, et quam multa nulla alia re nisi coniec-
tura nitantur sciolorum, superstitiosorum, desperantium.”

4. These principles have been stated at length, because
they are fruitful in themselves, and they mark an important step
in the progress of Lxx. textual criticism. But it is obvious that
they do not form a complete and coherent code of critical
canons. Indeed, Lagarde’s later axioms to some extent limit
and correct the earlier, for the recognition of the principle of
grouping the MSS. and taking their evidence according to families
evidently serves as a check upon the extreme eclecticism
recommended in the first axiom of 1863. Nevertheless the
series forms an excellent starting-point for a brief discussion of
the problems which lie before the future critical editor of the
Lxx. and the principles by which he must be guided.

By a singular accident the first two printed editions
of the Greek Old Testament exhibit on the whole the
Lucianic and Hesychian texts respectively’, whilst the Roman
edition of 1587 and the Oxford edition of 1707—-20 are
roughly representative of the two great uncial codices, B and
A. Thus the earlier editors anticipated, though imperfectly and
(in the case of the Complutensian and Aldine Septuagints)
unwittingly, the two methods of editing the Greek O. T.
which are still in use. Of the advantages and disadvantages
of the recensional method, enough has been said. ‘The other,
which consists of printing the text of a single MS., with or
without an apparatus criticus, is clearly desirable only in the
case of a MS. which sufficiently represents an important type
of text, and may thus be profitably used as a standard of com-
parison. Such are the two great uncials already mentioned.

Cod. B, as was pointed out by Dr Hort’, ‘‘on the whole

1 Cornill, Zzechzel, p. 79: ““εἰη wunderbar gliicklicher Zufall hatte uns
somit in der Aldine im Grossen und Ganzen den Hesych gegeben, wie die

Complutensis im Grossen und Ganzen den Lucian darstellt.”
2 See U.7. in Greek, p. xi. f.

Textual condition of the LX X. 487

presents the version of the Septuagint in its relatively oldest
form.” Taken as a whole, it is neutral in its relation to the
recensions of the third and fourth centuries; its text is nei-
ther predominantly Lucianic nor Hesychian nor Hexaplaric.
Cornill, indeed, was at one time led by certain appearances in
the B text of Ezekiel to believe that in that prophet at least the
scribe of B had extracted his text from the fifth column of the
Hexapla, or rather, from the edition of Eusebius and Pam-
philus*. Lagarde, however, at once pointed out the difficulties
which beset Cornill’s theory?, and Hort, in a letter to the
Academy (Dec. 24, 1887), dismissed it with the remark,
‘“What Cornill does seem to me to have proved is that in
Ezekiel B and the Lxx. text of the Hexapla have an element
in common at variance with most other texts”; adding, “The
facts suggest that B in the Septuagint was copied from a MS.
or MSS. partially akin in text to the MS. or MSS. from which
Origen took the fundamental text for.the Lxx. column of his
Hexapla’.” Eventually Cornill withdrew his suggestion,
observing that the forms. of the proper names in B shew no
sign of having been influenced by Ongen’s corrections*.

If we accept Dr Hort’s view, which at present holds the field,
the Vatican MS. in the O. T. as a whole carries us back to the
third century text known to Origen, and possibly to one much
earlier. In other words, not only is the Vatican MS. our
oldest MS. of the Greek Bible, but it contains, speaking quite
generally, the oldest text. But it would be an error to suppose
that this is true in regard to every context or even every book,

1 See his Ezechzel, pp. 84,95. The theory was suggested by an early
hypothesis of Lagarde (A zmerkungen, p. 3) that the text of B was extracted
from a glossed codex.

* In Gott. gelehrte Anzeigen, 1886 (reprinted in AZitthetlungen, 11.

ond Guta)
i ? On the provenance of B and δὲ see Hort, Jztr.*, p. 264 ff., Harris,
Stichometry, p. 71 ff., Robinson, Authaliana, p. 42 ff., and the summary in
Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., Ὁ. 128.
4 Gott. gelehrte Nachrichten, xxx. (1888, p. 194 ff.).

488 Textual condition of the LXX.

and a still graver error to treat the text of B as necessarily
representing everywhere the original Septuagint. As Mr
Burkitt has pointed out’, “the O. L. and the Hexaplar text
convict B here and there of interpolation, especially in Isaiah.”
“Certainly (he writes in another place’) in the books of Kings
it is free from some of the gross interpolations which have
befallen most other MSS. But it cannot claim to transmit to
us an warevised text of the κοινὴ éxdoors. Many of its readings
shew marks of irregular revision and the hand of an editor.
As a result of this critical process, B sometimes tends to agree
with the Massoretic text where other Lxx. authorities represent
a widely different underlying Hebrew. B also contains a
certain number of widely spread corruptions that are of purely
Greek origin, which are absent from earlier forms of the Lxx.
such as the Old Latin®.” In certain books the general
character of B breaks down altogether, 1.6. the archetype of B
in those books was of another kind. Thus in Judges B was
formerly suspected of representing the Hesychian recension’,
whilst a living scholar has hinted that it may give the text of a
translation not earlier than the fourth century a.p.° The Cam-
bridge editors of the A text of Judges wisely content themselves
with “ the surmise that [as regards B and A in this book] the
true text of the Septuagint is probably contained neither in the
one nor in the other exclusively, but must be sought for by
comparing in detail, verse by verse, and word by word, the
two recensions, in the light of all other available evidence,

1 Tyconius, p. ΟΧΥ]].

2 Aquila, p. το.

8 An interesting and plausible specimen of this class of errors occurs in ©
4 Regn. iii. 21 B, καὶ εἶπον "Q (A, with fl, καὶ ἐπάνω). The process of
corruption is evident (ETTANW, EITTANW, EITTONG). In Sirach instances
are especially abundant, e.g. xlill. 17 ὠνείδισεν (A, ὠδίνησεν) ; 23 ἐφύτευσεν
αὐτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦς (H. P. 248 ἐφ. ἐν αὐτῇ νήσους) ; 26 εὐωδία τέλος (248 εὐοδοῖ ὁ
ἄγγελο).

+ Grabe, ep. ad Millium (1705).

> Moore, Fudges, p. xlvi.

Textual condition of the LX X. 489

19)

and especially of the extant remains of the Hexapla a

remark which is capable of a much wider application’.

Cod. A, the great rival of cod. B, “exhibits a text which
has been systematically corrected so as to agree more closely
with the Hebrew®.” “In all four books of Kings and in some
other parts A has been conformed to the Hexaplar text...In
fact A is often little more than a transcript of the fourth
column of the Hexapla, but without the critical signs by which
Origen’s additions were marked off from the rest*.” In other
words, adaptation to the Hebrew has been effected not by
direct use of the official Hebrew text, but through the medium
of Origen’s work. Thus, if B represents in part the text
which lay before Origen when he began his task, A, at least
in the historical books, answers roughly to the result at which
he arrived.

Yet A is very far from being, even in the earlier books, a
mere reproduction of the Eusebian recension. It has been
extensively hexaplarised, but it possesses a large element of
ancient readings which are not Hexaplaric, and which it shares,
to a great extent, with the Lucianic family. Moreover, as we
have already seen, the citations of the Lxx. in the N.T. and
by Christian writers of the first three centuries, often support
the readings of A with a remarkable unanimity’. These pheno-
mena point to the presence in A of an underlying text of great
antiquity, possibly a pre-Christian recension made in Syria’.
It must be observed, however, that the text of this MS. is not

1 A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, 7he Book of Fudges in Greek acc. to
the text of Cod. Alexandrinus (Cambridge, 1897), p. v.

2 On the B text of Sirach and Tobit see above, pp. 271, 274.

3 Driver, Samuel, p. 1.

4 Burkitt, Aguzla, p.19; cf. p. 53f. Cf. Silberstein, Uber den Ur-
sprung der im cod. Alex. τε. Vaticanus des adritten Konigsbuches...tiberlie-
ferten Textgestalt (Giessen, 1893).

S Above: pp-. 305 f.,'403; 413,422:

6 It is, however, possible that the readings in B, which have no such
support and are indeed almost unique, belong to a still earlier text of the
Lxx., which had not received Palestinian revision. Cf. p. 429.

490 Textual condition of the 7, ΧΑ.

homogeneous throughout. The Psalms are evidently copied
from a Psalter written for ecclesiastical use, and it is interesting
to notice how constantly A here appears in company with the
later liturgical Psalters R and T, and with the seventh century
corrector of 8 known as ἐδ. In the Prophets xAQ are in
frequent coalition against B, and in agreement with the group
which is believed to be representative of the Hesychian
recension,

As to cod. κα it is more difficult to form a judgement. We
are still dependent for its text on Tischendorf’s facsimiles.
Moreover, with the exception of a few fragments of Genesis and
Numbers, larger portions of 1 Chronicles and 2 Esdras, and the
Books of Esther, Judith and Tobit, 1 and 4 Maccabees, this
MS. is known to us only in the poetical and prophetical books.
Notes at the end of 2 Esdras and Esther claim for the MS. that
in those books it was corrected by the aid of a copy of the
Hexaplaric text written under the supervision of Pamphilus’.
But the first hand of δὶ often agrees with A against B, and the
combinations sART in the Psalms, sAC in the other poetical
books, and sAQ in the Prophets, are not uncommon. In
Tobit, as we have seen, δαὶ follows a recension which differs
widely from B. On the whole, however, it comes nearer to B
than any of the other uncials, often confirming its characteristic
or otherwise unique readings. Cod. C is yet more fragmentary
and its fragments are limited to the poetical books which
follow the Psalter.

Thus if a single uncial MS. is to be adopted as a standard
of comparison, it is obvious that either A or B must be chosen
for the purpose, and B is to be preferred as being freer from
Hexaplaric interpolations and offering generally a more neutral
text. The latter MS. has therefore been employed by recent
editors, and this course is probably the best that can be

1 See above, p. 75.

Textual condition of the LXX. 491

followed. But the method of editing the text of a single MS.
leaves much to be desired, for, as Lagarde nghtly insists, no
single MS. and no single family of MSS. can be regarded as
a trustworthy or sufficient representative of the original Lxx.

5. There remains the alternative of constructing a critical
text. This can only be done by the scientific use of all exist-
ing materials'. The task which lies before the critical editor
of the Lxx. is partly similar to that of the N. T. editor, and
partly saz generts. The general principles which will guide
him are those which have been expounded by Dr Hort in
the second part of /utroduction to the NV. Ζ' in Greek*. The
documents moreover fall into the same three classes: (1) MSS.,
(2) versions, (3) literary citations; although in the case of
the Lxx., the versions are ‘daughter-versions’ and not based
upon an original text, and the citations are not limited to post-
apostolic Christian writers, but may be gathered also from
Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament. But in the appli-
cation of the principles of criticism to these documents the
critic of the Lxx. must strike out a path for himself. Here
his course will partly be shaped by the fact that he is dealing
with a version and not with an original text*, and by the
history of the transmission of the version, which is only to
a limited extent identical with that of the transmission of the
Greek New Testament.

(2) The first business of the critic of the Lxx. is to review
the documentary evidence which is available for his use. This
has been already described at some length (MSS., pp. 122—
170; Versions, pp. $7—121; Citations, pp. 369—432). The
preliminary work of preparing these materials for use is still in
progress. We now have access to photographic reproductions

1 Cf. Nestle, Zur Rekonstruction der Septuaginta (in Philologus, 1899).

2 Ed. 2 (1896), pp. 19—72.

3 The original text may be regarded as the primary document for the
text of the version.

492 Textual condition of the LXX.

of codd. ABGLQ, facsimiles or printed texts of s;CDEFHKO
RTUZIII, and collations of the remaining uncials, and of a
large number of the cursives. But the facsimiles are more or
less inadequate, and the older collations of unpublished MSS.
need careful verification. To turn to the versions, the
fragments of the Old Latin are now for the most part accessible
in carefully edited but scattered texts, and the more important
of the Egyptian and Syriac versions have received much
attention; but the Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Georgian and
Slavonic are still but partially explored. Good progress is
being made in the editing of Philo, Josephus, and the Christian
fathers, both Greek and Latin. ‘Thus, while much remains to
be done in the way of perfecting the apparatus criticus of the
Greek O.T., there is an abundance of materials ready for
immediate use, and every prospect that in a few years the
store will be largely increased.

(ὁ) When an editor has been found who is competent
to undertake reconstruction, he will probably desire to lmit
himself to that one task, after the example of the editors of
the (ew Testament in Greek’, and his resources, if not as
abundant as those of the N. T. editors, will be both sufficient
and trustworthy. But with the materials thus ready to his
hand, how is he to proceed? As in the case of the New
Testament, he will begin by interrogating the history of his
text. Here there are certain landmarks to guide him at start-
ing. As we have seen, the three recensions which in the
fourth century had a well-defined local distribution, have been
connected with groups of extant documents—two of them
quite definitely, the third with some probability. Other groups
representing less clearly recognised families have emerged
from recent enquiries, such as that which yields the text
characteristic of the catenae (H.P. 14, 16, 28, 52, 57, 73;

1 Cf. Hort, Yntr.4, pe go.

Textual condition of the LXX. 493

77, Paris Reg. Gr. 128, and many others), the pair H. P. 54,
75, with which 59 may also to some extent be classed, and the
codices which correspond more or less closely with cod. A and
cod. B respectively. It is probable that as the collation and
examination of MSS., versions, and fathers proceed, other
groups, or other members of the groups already mentioned,
will come to light, leaving an ever diminishing number of
documents which present a text either too mixed or too peculiar
to be classified.

(c) In operating upon the groups thus obtained the critical
editor will possess two chief aids towards the discrimination
of ancient elements from those which are later or recensional.
(1) While the East in Jerome’s time was divided between the
Lucianic, Hesychian, and Hexaplaric texts, the great Western
dioceses, Carthage, Milan, and Rome, read the Lxx. under
the guise of a Latin version, beneath which originally lay a
Greek text anterior to the Hexapla itself. Consequently, the
Old Latin, in its purest types, carries us behind all our exist-
ing MSS., and is sometimes nearer to the Septuagint, as the
Church received that version from the Synagogue, than the
oldest of our uncial MSS. Readings which have disappeared
from every known Greek MS. are here and there preserved by
the daughter-version, and in such cases the O. L. becomes a
primary authority for the Greek text’. But besides these
occasional contributions of a direct nature, this version is
of the highest value as enabling the critical editor to detect
pre-Origenic readings and to distinguish them from those which
are later or recensional. In regard to the latter point the
test is not an absolute one, because it is always possible that
the reading on which an O.L. rendering is based was one of
two or more that were both current in the κοινή before Origen’s
time. (2) But the O.L. is not our only witness to the read-

1 Burkitt, Zyconzus, p. cxvii. f.

494 Textual condition of the LXX.

ings of the κοινή. Its evidence may often be checked and
confirmed by that of the Syro-Hexaplar and the fragments:
of the Hexaplaric Greek, where the obeli and asterisks
distinguish readings which existed in Origen’s MSS. from those
which were interpolated from other sources, or rewritten with
their aid’.

(4) By such means the critic may often satisfy himself
that he has reached the text of the Septuagint as it was found
in Christian MSS. of the third, perhaps even of the second
century. It is another question how far the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of
the Christian Church was identical with the pre-Christian text
or texts of Alexandria and Jerusalem. Early citations from
the Lxx. suggest a diversity of readings and possibly the
existence of two or more recensions in the first century, and
lead us to believe that many of the variations of our MSS. have
come down from sources older than the Christian era.

Here our documentary evidence fails us, and we have to fall
back upon the ‘internal evidence of readings.’ The variants
which remain after eliminating Hexaplaric matter, and recen-
sional changes later than the Hexapla, resolve themselves
into two classes; viz. (1) readings which affect merely the Greek
text, such as (a) corruptions obvious or possible, or (ὁ) doublets,
whether brought together in a conflate text, or existing in
different MSS.; and (2) readings which presuppose a difference
in the original. In dealing with both classes much help may
be obtained from Lagarde’s earlier axioms*. In detecting
corruptions the student must chiefly depend on his faculty
of recognising a Semitic original under Greek which does not
directly suggest it; in deciding between double renderings, he
will set aside that which bears marks of correction or of assimi-
lation to the official Hebrew or to later Greek versions based

1 On this point see Burkitt, Aguila, p. 33f.
2 Above, p. 484 f.

Textual condition of the LXX. 495

upon it, choosing that which is freer, less exact, and perhaps —
less grammatical, as being probably nearer to the work of
the original translator. Lastly, when the variants imply
divergent Hebrew texts, he will prefer, ceteris paribus, that
which departs from the Massoretic text. The application
of these rules, however, calls for knowledge and judgement
of no ordinary kind’.

6. It cannot be doubted that the future will produce a
school of critics competent to deal with the whole question
of Septuagint reconstruction, and that a critical edition of
the Old Testament in Greek will hereafter take its place
on the shelves of the scholar’s library by the side of the
present ew Testament in Greek or its successor. Meanwhile
some immediate wants may be mentioned here. (1) Several
important uncial MSS. still need to be reproduced by photo-
graphy, particularly codd. x, F, R, V, T; and the process
might well be extended to some of the weightier cursives.
(2) Texts of which photographs have been published, or of
which verified transcripts or collations exist, deserve in some
cases detailed examination, with the view of determining their
precise character in the several books or groups of books,
and their relation to one another and to a common standard,
such as the text of B. (3) The stores of fresh Hexaplaric
matter which have accumulated during the quarter of a
century since the publication of Field’s great book?, will
soon be sufficient to form a supplementary volume, which
might also contain the corrections supplied by photography and
by the more exact collation of Hexaplaric MSS. (4) Is it too
much to hope that the University which has the honour of hav-
ing issued from its Press the Septuagint of Holmes and Parsons

1 On the scope for conjecture where evidence fails, see Hatch, Zssays,
p- 281, where some other remarks are to be found which deserve attention
but need sifting and safeguarding.

2 These will be digested in the second fasczculus of Mr Redpath’s Sup-
plement to the Oxford Concordance.

496 Textual condition of the LXX.

may see fit to reprint at least the apparatus of that monumental
work with such emendations and abbreviations as it may be
possible to adopt without seriously interfering with the scope
and method of the edition? It is improbable that a collection
of all the evidence on so vast a scale will ever be attempted
again, and until this has been done, Holmes and Parsons
cannot be superseded as a storehouse of facts. (5) A pro-
posal was made by Dr Nestle at the London Oriental Con-
gress of 1892 to compile a ‘Variorum Septuagint,’ giving the
text of B with marginal variants sufficient to correct the errors
of that MS. There can be little doubt that such an edition
would be serviceable, especially if the scheme could be so far
extended as to include a selection from all the variants, after
the manner of the English ‘Variorum Bible.’ (6) Every stu-
dent of the Old Testament will wish success to the undertaking
which is now in progress at the Cambridge Press. Although
the text of the Larger Septuagint will be simply that of the
standard MS. employed in the manual edition, its apparatus
will for the first time present to the critical scholar the essen-
tial documentary evidence, verified with scrupulous care, and
arranged in a form at once compendious and helpful to
research.

LITERATURE. W. Selwyn, art. Septuagint, in Smith’s D.B.
iii. (London, 1863). P. de Lagarde, Aumerkungen zur gr.

Ubersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig, 1863); Genesis Graece
(Leipzig, 1868); Azkiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der 97.

Ubersetzung des A. T. (Gottingen, 1882); Lzbrorum V. T. canont-
corum pars prior (Gottingen, 1883); review of Cornill’s Ezechzel
in Gott. gelehrte Anzeigen, June 1, 1886 (reprinted in MWztthed?-
ungen, 11. 49ff., Gottingen, 1887). J. Wellhausen, Der Text
der Biicher Samuelis (Gottingen, 1871); art. Septuagint in
Encycl. Brit® (London, 1886). (. H. Cornill, Das Buch des
Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1886); in Gott. gelehrte Nachrichten
xxx. (1888, 8, p. 194 ff.). A. Ceriani, Le recenstont det LXX. é la
verstone latina detta Itala in Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo
Il. xix., xxi. (1883—4); review of the O.7. zz Greek in Rendiconti

Textual condition of the LXX. 497

11. ΧΧΙ., xli. (1888); De codice Marchaliano (Rome, 1890). W.
Sanday and F. J. A. Hort, letters in Academy, Dec. 10 and 24,
1887. V. Ryssel, Untersuchungen tuber die Textgestalt...des
Buches Micha, p. 175 ff. (Leipzig, 1887). I. Hooykas, Jets over
de grickscthe vertaling van het Oude Testament (Rotterdam,
1888). H.Oort, De Lagarde’s plan van eene vitgaaf der Septua-
ginta (21882). E. Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, iv.—vii.
(Oxford, 1889). 5. Driver, Wotes on the Hebrew Text of the
Books of Samuel, Intr. p. xlvii. ff. (Oxford, 1890). A. Dillmann,
Textkritisches zum Buche [job (in Sttzungsberichte d. k. P.
Akademie d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1890, liii.). E. Nestle, Zhe
Variorum Septuagint, in. Proceedings of Oriental Congress held
at London, 1892; Urtext p. 77 f. (1897); Zur Rekoustruktion
der Septuaginta, in Philologus, N. F., xii. 1 (1899) p. 121 ff.
E. Klostermann, De libro Coheleth versione Alexandrina (Kiel,
1892); review of Zhe Ο. 7. tn Greek in Gott. gelehrte Anzeigen

(1895. 4). S. Silberstein, Uber den Ursprung der im Cod. Alex.
u. Vat.des dritten Konigsbuches tiberlieferten Textgestalt (Giessen,
1893). Bleek-Wellhausen, Eznlettung tn das A. T., p. 549 ff.
(Berlin, 1893). F. C. Burkitt, Ze Rules of Tyconius, p. cxlii. ff.
(Cambridge, 1894); Zhe Old Latin and Itala (Cambridge, 1896) ;
fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of
Aguzla (Cambridge, 1897). G. Moore, Commentary on the Book
of Judges, p. xliv. ff. H. P. Smith, Commentary on the Books of
Samuel, pp. xxx. ff., 402 ff. (Edinburgh, 1899).

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

Page 3, note 1, read πρὴ:,

33

»"»
»

»
»

6, line 4. On the Ptolemies consult, in addition to books cited,
J. P. Mahaffy, History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty
(1900).

17. See also Willrich, /uden u. Griechen, vor der makkabdischen
Erhebung (Gottingen, 1895).

27, line 19, read L. Cappellus.

105, note 6. See also Brightman, in 7. 7h. St. 1. ii., 2. 254.

140, line 18 f., for a complete collation, read an edition.

150, line 1. Add Hexaplaric.

169, line το. Add M. Faulhaber, Die Propheten-catenen nach rim.
Handschriften (Freiburg i. B., 1899).

214. Add the Latin list printed by Mr C. H. Turner in /. Zh. S¢.
arity

271. note 3. An edition of Sirach as given by cod. 248 will shortly
be published by the Cambridge University Press.

282, note 3, for Badr. read Bals.

286. To the literature on Sirach add H. Herkenne, De veteris
latinae Ecclestastici capitébus 1.—xlizt. (Leipzig, 1899).

314. To the literature on Biblical Greek add G. A. Deissmann, Die
sprachl. Erforschung der griech. Bibel, and Die Sprache der
griech. Bibel (Th. Rundschau, τ. p. 463 ff.).

319, note 3, for Hos. 7.6 7X. read Hos. ti. 23 (25) ἠγαπημένην, and
dele τὶ dpxov. Also for /sa. vit. 6 συνλ. read Ps. lxxxtit. 7
δώσει, Dan. vit. 22 (LXX.) ἐδόθη.

380. To the literature on Philo add L. Massebieau, Le classement des
auvres de Philon (in Bibliotheque de [école des hautes études,
I. pp- I—9g!).

449, line 29, read πνεῦμα.

472, line 29, add θυσία aivécews (Lev. vit. 3f., Ps. xlix. 14, 23).

APPENDPX.

THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS

32—2

ADDENDA

The following are noteworthy emendations and readings adopted in the
edition of Wendland and Mendelssohn, which appeared too late for any
use to be made of it in constructing the present text.

519. 3 ὑπομιμνήσκειν conj Diels | 10 διοικει. Tv προαιρεσιν εχοντες |
523. 6 τοιουτο Tov βασιλεως προσταξαντος, οσοι | 24 παντι και | 524. 8 αὐτο]
autos cum Jos | 527. 24 kata πολλοὺς τροποὺς (cf πολυμερως Jos) | 529. 18
emt Ta THs] emiTayns bene conj Mend. (cf 537. 20) | 531. 3 owows <KaTw
Ta> κατα τὴν | 4 διαγλυῴφης wore καὶ κατ audorepa | 6 om wore | 532. 2
evapyws | 3 mponymeva | 533. 14 εστήηκη | 534. 21 συμμετρως εχουσαν | 24 τὸ
κλιμα των λειτουργουντῶν Lepewv conj Mend. | 536. 11 wore vrohauBave
recte ut vid | 537. 28 αὐτὴν τὴν προς φυλακὴν | 538. τό παντα μετα δαψι-
λειας | 539. 23 ὑπεβησαν | 24 εκατοντάρουροι (Mahaffy, Class. Rev. VIII.
349) | 541. 2 και exewos autos χωρις (sine punct) | 4 ποιήσαι] Kat ἡμᾶς
Mend. | 5 ev φροντισειν | 542. 3 παντελως δεισιδαιμονως | 545. 10 Tw σημει-
ουσθαι | 548. 14 Kexpnuevou | 550. 14 0 de apxedearpos (conj Letronne: Jos
hab o δὲ emt τῆς των ἕενων amodoxns TeTaypmevos) | 17 Toes εθεσιν ιδιοις
συγχρωνται | 552. 2 εκαστα <KadNioTa> πραττοι | 556. 12 ἡ πολειν] περι-
πολειν | 557. 25 map eavrov | 560. 14 ανθυποτιθης | 15 av] dv | 562. 5 To δὲ
επιδεσθαι radia σωφρ. | ὃ Eenreca | 563. 22 εν ξενιτεια | 566. 2 oparar] op-
μαται con} Mend. | 568. 17 γινομενα Biw συμῴορον και καθηκον | 569. 2 um]
ex Mend. | 570. 3 evra πλειονα καὶ] εἰ πεπλεονακα bene conj Mend. |
16 ἡμερας <wpas> o Bac. | 21 παντων] παρα των con} Wendland | 573. τό
πολυωριας (cf 565 fin: Mahaffy, Class. Rev. VIII. 349).

CORRIGENDA

532. τό text. et app. crit. Pro χρύσεοι lege χρυσοῖ | 542. 25 app. crit.
Pro Geos en corr Wendland] lege @eos ety ex conj] θεωθειη conj Wendland |
561. 2 app. crit. Pro θεὸν con} Wendland lege deov θεον conj Mend.

INTRODUCTION.

The so-called letter of Aristeas to Philocrates appeared first in
print in a Latin translation by Matthias Palmerius of Pisa (Rome,
1471). The editio princeps of the Greek text was not published
until 1561, when Simon Schard brought out at Basle a text based
apparently on an Italian MS., with a few readings taken from a
second (Vatican) MS. The particular MS. which was followed in
this earliest edition the present writer has not been able to discover.
But there exists in the Library at Basle (MS. O. Iv. Io, no. 21
in Omont’s Catalogue of Swiss MSS.) a MS. presented to it by
Schard, which is beyond a doubt a copy of the Vatican MS.
denoted by K in the present text; and a list of readings appended
to Schard’s edition under the heading ‘castigationes in Aristeam
juxta exemplar Vaticanae’ appears to be a scanty selection of the
readings of K. Schard’s edition was followed by others in the
seventeenth century based upon his work; but it does not appear
that any fresh collation of MSS. was undertaken! Until 1870
the latest edition of the text was that which Hody prefixed to his
work De Libliorum Textibus, published at Oxford in 1705. This
was merely a reprint of the text of Schard, Hody naively con-
fessing in his preface that he did not consider the work of col-
lating MSS. of a work of such doubtful authenticity to be worth
the trouble. ‘Non me fugit servari in Bibliotheca Regia Parisina,
aliisque quibusdam, exemplaria istius MSS. Sed de tali opusculo,
quod tanquam foetum supposititium penitus rejicio, Amicos soli-
citare, et in Partes longinquas mittere, vix operae pretium existi-
mavi. Eas curas relinquo illis, quibus tanti esse res videbitur.’

The first step towards a critical edition of the text was taken
by Moriz Schmidt, who in 1870 brought out in Merx’s Archiv
(Band I.) a text based on a complete collation of two Paris MSS.,
which he denoted by B and C, and a partial collation of a third,
A, which was used to supply the opening of the letter which was
missing in B and C. Schmidt’s edition, though a valuable begin-
ning, is far from satisfactory. A full use was not made of the
evidence for the text afforded by the paraphrase of Josephus and
the extracts of Eusebius. Moreover a large number of MSS. of
the letter is now known to exist; and fresh light has been thrown
on the language by the papyri of the Ptolemaic period which have
at various times been discovered in Egypt.

The valuable help which these papyri offer as an illustration of
the letter, shewing that the writer possessed an accurate knowledge

1 The earlier editions are enumerated by Schmidt in his preface to the
text (Merx, Archiv, Bd. 1. 1870).

502 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

of the official titles and phraseology of the Ptolemaic court, was
first pointed out by Prof. Lumbroso. He says!, ‘Depuis quarante
ans, un rayon de lumiére inattendu a jailli des inscriptions et des
papyrus, qui jette sur elle un jour nouveau; chose frappante :
il n’est pas un titre de cour, une institution, une loi, une magis-
trature, une charge, un terme technique, une formule, un tour
de langue remarquable dans cette lettre, il n’est pas un témoignage
d’Aristée concernant l’histoire civile de ’époque, qui ne se trouve
enregistré dans les papyrus ou les inscriptions et confirmé par
eux’. A close examination of the larger evidence from the papyri
now available will probably corroborate the opinion, to which
other evidence seems to point, that the letter was written under some
one of the later Ptolemies. In any case the evidence of the papyri
is an important factor to be taken into account in establishing a text.

Another illustration of the text is afforded by a kindred work,
also dealing with the history of the Jews of Egypt under the Pto-
lemaic rule, the third Book of Maccabees’.

Prof. Lumbroso further supplemented Schmidt’s work upon
the text by collating the Paris MS. A throughout, and also a
MS. in the British Museum (F), and one at Venice (G); he also
indicated the existence of five MSS. in the Vatican, but it does not
appear that he has published any collations of these Roman MSS.

In 1893 the want of an edition of the letter was represented
to the present writer, and in a journey to Italy in the autumn of
that year he collated the five Vatican MSS. mentioned by Lum-
broso (HKLIM), and one in the library of the Barberini palace
(P), and revised the collations which had already been made
of the MSS. at Venice (G) and Paris (ABC); at Paris he also
collated the fragment Q and the MS. D, so far as was necessary
to establish the fact that it was a copy of A. He has since col-
lated a MS. at Florence (T) and another at Zurich (Z). On his
learning subsequently that Prof. Mendelssohn of Dorpat had for
many years been preparing an edition of the letter, which was
nearly ready, the work which he had begun was put aside. Prof.
Mendelssohn’s death postponed the appearance of the expected
German edition ; a fragment only, consisting of the text of about

1 Recherches sur Véconomie politique de Egypte sous les Lagides, par
G. Lumbroso (Turin, 1870), p. xiii.

2 Some instances are the titles ἀρχισωματοφύλακες, of ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν,
χρηματισταί, οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν ταγμάτων (cf. ταγματικοῖς ὑπηρέταις Wilcken,
Actenstiicke Pap. Ν111.}, the position assigned to the ἀρχίατρος Nicanor
as a major domo (cf. Peyron, 7urin Papyri 1. 2. 25, the position of ὁ
βασιλικὸς ἰατρός), the phrase ἐὰν φαίνηται, the correct use of εὐτύχει at the
close of a petition from a subordinate to a higher official, the words éxa-
τοντάρουρος and παρεύρεσις, the phrase παραγένεσθαι εἰς τοὺς τόπους.

3 Cf. especially 3 Maccabees ili. 25—28 (προστετάχαμεν---διειλήφαμεν----
μηνύειν δὲ τὸν βουλόμενον) with Ar. p. 523. 23 ff. (προστετάχαμεν---διειλή-
φαμεν---τὸν δὲ βουλόμενον προσαγγέλλειν).

Introduction to the letter of Artsteas. 503

a fifth of the letter with commentary but without introduction, was
published soon after his death!. The remainder of his work, it
is understood, has been put into the hands of Prof. Wendland,
whose edition has been expected for some time past. Wendland
has already brought out a German translation of the letter in
Kautzsch’s Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testa-
ments, which has been used in constructing the present text. The
German edition not however having appeared’, the present writer
was entrusted by Dr Swete with the preparation of a text of the
letter, to form an Appendix to his Introduction to the Septuagint.
Although there are doubtless more MSS. in existence than those
which have been used, and although the text in several passages
still remains uncertain, it is hoped that the work which has been
done may be of some service in grouping the MSS. and preparing
the way for a final edition.

The following genealogical table will show approximately how
the MSS. are related to each other.

Q
a
τ- εἰ
| |
B €
| foal
ae Giga tl aie)
i ΠΗ
|
aortas ate fer ‘ead ! =a
ῖοοο | | aa | | |
H G 1
ΓΙΟΟ | ἱ
Α |
1200 = K
Bes Ue Ni OL
1300
| Q
1400 |
15 | M
[500
R
1600

1 Aristeae quae fertur ad Philocratem epistulae tnitium, ed. L. Men-
delssohn et M. Krascheninnikov (Dorpat, 1897).

2 It has appeared in the Teubner series of Greek and Latin writers
(Leipzig, 1900) as the present sheets were being passed through the press.

504 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

The MSS. denoted in the above table are as follows:

Th, Vale Yay. M Ottobon. 32.

A Paris 128. Q Paris 950.

D Paris 130. T Florence Laur. Acquisti 44.
F Brit. Mus. Burney 34. B_ Paris 129.

L_ Vat. 746. C Paris 5.

K Vat. 383. Ῥ Barberini Iv. 56.

R_ Basle O. Iv. το (Omont 21). S Vat. 1668.

G Venice 534. Z Zurich Bibl. de la Ville C. 11
I Palat. 203. (Omont 169).

It will be seen that the MSS. fall into two main groups, which
may for convenience be described as the A and B groups, the A
group again falling into two smaller groups HKA and GIM, and
the B group into two smaller groups TB and CPSZ. The real
problem in fixing the text is to determine the relative value of the
A and B groups. An examination of the readings shows, in the
opinion of the present writer, that the B group, which was followed
by Schmidt, while presenting a specious text, is in reality based
on a recension, although in a few passages it has kept the original
readings ; in the A group no correction has taken place, and
though the text which has here been Landed down is not altogether
free from corruption, yet the true reading is in most cases rather
to be looked for here than in the revised B text.

The group HA(DFL)K(R).
H, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 747, saec. xi. membr.
foll. 260.

fol. 1. Aristeas.

12. Letter of Theodoret to Hypatius. καὶ ἄλλοι μὲν φιλομαθεῖς
avdpes—eis προοίμιον τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς.

13. Catena οἵ Theodoret and other patristic writers on the
Octateuch.

259. πόσαι παραδύσεις εἰσὶ τῆς θείας γραφῆς.

260. ποσάκις καί ποτε ἐπορθήθησαν οἱ ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ.

A beautiful MS., in clearly written cursive characters, which hang
from ruled lines, containing coloured illustrations throughout (five in
the Aristeas portion), ornamental red head-pieces and red _ initial
letters in the margm. Single column, 48 lines in a page: size of page
14 Χ 104 in., of writing 11} x 7# in.

The Catena is apparently by the same hand as the Aristeas, the
LXX. text being in the same size of writing as the Aristeas, and the
marginal Catena in smaller writing (80 lines in a page). There is one
large omission in the Aristeas, two leaves of the MS. apparently having
been lost. The verso of fol. 3 ends with τὴν τράπεζαν (p. 530. 8), and
λείπει is written in an early hand at the foot of the page; fol. 4 begins
with μὲν πεδινῶν (538. 11) and + is written in the margin.

Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 505

K, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 383, saec. xii.—xiil.
membr. 319 foll.

fol. 1. Aristeas.

29. Theodoret to Hypatius.
rgvo. Catena on Genesis.
187. Catena on Exodus.

Size of page 122g in., of writing 104 x 74 in.: 38 lines in a page.
The leaves at the beginning are soiled and worm-eaten. The words
hang from ruled lines: the right-hand margin is irregular, the writing
going beyond the perpendicular line in places. The writing is upright
with very thick strokes, clear, but rather untidy.

R, CODEX BASILEENSIS. Basle. Codd. Gr. O. Iv. το (Omont!
21). This MS., written in the sixteenth century, apparently for
Schard’s edition, but only very sparingly used by him in an
appendix of readings, is clearly a direct transcript of the preceding
MS. _ This may be shown by the following instances out of many:
ov KR (ων cett.) p. 519. 4, διαθεσις καθαρα KR (καθ. διαθεσις cett.)
p. 519. 8, κυριωτερον KR (κυριωτατον cett.) p. 519. 9, οἱ avdpes
ασῴφαλως KR (aod. οἱ avdpes cett.) p. 528. 10, σαλισγουμενοι KR
(συναλισγ. cett.) p. 543. 23, χρώμεθα KR (χρωμενα cett.) p. 544. το,
om. kat περι τουτων---σεμνοτήητα KR p. 548. 16f. The MS. has the
inscription at the end, ‘donum Simonis Schardii Magdiburgiensis.’

Bee ODES. KEGIUS.. Paris. Bibl. -Nat. Gr.” 128, -saec.. xu.
membr. 610 pagg.

p. i. Aristeas.
26. Theodoret to Hypatius.
27. Preface to Genesis from Gregory of Nyssa, inc. ἐπειδήπερ εἰσα-
γώγιμον πρὸς θεογνωσίαν....
28. Catena on the Octateuch.
608. On the versions of Holy Scripture, the names of God, etc.

Single column: words hang from ruled lines, 47 lines in a page:
a neat writing in brown ink, initial letters in crimson: size of page
143 X τοῦ in., of writing 11x7in. A hand of the fourteenth century
(Lumbroso?) has added some marginal notes (on Theopompus and
Theodectes, a saying of Alexander the Great, etc.), many of which are
rubbed and almost illegible, but they may be read in D which has
copied them. Montfaucon (426/. Bzbliothecarum, 11. 725) mentions this
MS., and describes it as written ‘manu XII. circiter saeculi.’ On p. 610
is written a note, +.ow ev (?) ravra es δοξαν | Ov και TNS αγιας TpLados
φιΐλα [? φυλλα] τριακοσια y nro (3) Τ Ὑ +.
.
1 Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs des Bibliothéqgues de Suisse (Leipzig,

1886).
2 Atti della R. Accad. di Torino, vol. 1v. 1869.

506 Introduction to the letter of ΑΙ γίξίεας.

Descendants of A(DFL).
D, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 130, saec. xv. chart.
288 foll.

fol. 1. Aristeas.

26vo. Theodoret to Hypatius.

Ὅς Gregory of Nyssa’s Preface.

28. Catena on Genesis and Exodus, 1—12.

The rest of the Catena and the remaining matter contained in A
are to be found in MS. Paris 132, written by the same hand as D.
Omont’s Catalogue describes the MS. as ‘copied by George Gregoro-
poulus’; Omont takes this apparently from the 1740 catalogue which
says ‘ vzdetur a Gregoropulo exaratus’ ; the name of the scribe does not
seem to occur in the MS. A clearly written MS. in a hand similar
to that of M (of the same century). Page 13% οἱ ἴῃ. : writing g x 54in.
Another hand has underlined in red ink passages where there are
clerical errors and has corrected the text to that of A. This MS. was
not collated throughout, as it appeared certain from an examination of a
few passages that it was a copy of A (see below).

F, CODEX BURNEIENSIS. British Museum. Burney MS. 34,
5866. xv. chart. 645 pagg.

Same contents as A, viz.

p. 1. Aristeas.

21. Theodoret to Hypatius. |

22. Passages from Gregory of Nyssa’s book on the six days of
creation.

25. Catena on the Octateuch.

643. πόσαι παραδόσεις κ.τ.λ. ;

644. ποσάκις καί ποτε ἐπορθήθησαν οἱ ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ.

644. Evagrius Scitensis on the ten names of God.

645. Three chronological notes.

645. On the works of God in the six days.

L, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 746, pt. 1, saecimy,
(partim saec. xl.—xil.?) membr. 251 foll.

fol. x. Aristeas.
12. Theodoret to Hypatius.
13. Catena on Genesis and Excdus.

The portion of the MS. containing the Catena is certainly old
(eleventh or twelfth century) and possibly a copy of H or of an ancestor
of H. There are the same illustrations of O.T. history as in H, better
preserved but not so beautifully painted. The writing too is rougher,
not so neat as in H, but in the same style. The Aristeas (together with
the letter to Hypatius and the first page of the Catena) is supplied
by a much later hand on white shiny unruled parchment, the Catena
being on a browner parchment, and the letters there hanging from
ruled lines. The Aristeas is written in a single column: size of page

Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 507

13x 11 in., ‘of writing 113 x $Zin., the number of lines in a page
varying from 21 to 43. It is written apparently in two different hands ;
pp. I—3 are written rather diffusely; from εἰσὶ δὲ πρώτης φυλῆς
(p. 528. 10) the writing becomes more compact and neat, with more
lines in a page: with the words τὰ συμβαίνοντα τοῖς φίλοις (p. 565. 14)
the diffuse writing comes in again. The beginning of the Aristeas is
lost ; the MS. begins with -warwy ὦ βασιλεὺ (p. 521. 24). It ends with
ριστεας wNoxpare (sic). This ending marks a peculiarity of the MS.;
the rubricator has omitted to fill in the initial capital letters, hence we
find a for kat, pos for προς, auBavew for λαμβανειν, etc.

HKA. It is clear from their general agreement in readings
that these MSS. form one group. Notice the omissions which
they have in common:

(1) Ρ. 564. I. προς τουτ---ποιήσεσιν ET LTEAOL (so letters) om
HKA(DPL) ins Sma and B group.

(2) 66. ἐστιν επιτελεια-- -διατηρεις τὴν (53 letters) om
τ ins "GIM and B group.

(3) 559. 19. καθως υπο---διοικειται κατα (51 letters) om
HKA(DFLIGIM ins B group.

From the first two of these omissions it appears that HKA
must be derived from an original (y) which omitted these lines,
an ancestor of y having probably had lines of the length of 50
letters ; from the evidence of GIM we deduce that this group, while
connected with the HKA group, is not derived from y. H and A
are more closely connected than H and K; notice 551. 18 αναπτῶ
(ow sup lin) H avarrw A*; 562. 20 απαν H (τ suprascr H®")
απαν A.

ADFL. That these MSS. form a united group within the
HKA group is shown by their almost universal agreement. Notice
e.g. the readings 536. I χρώμενοι ADF L (ovpppinievor cett.), 537- 4
εἰσεληλυθεναι ADF L (εληλυθεναι cett.), 547. 3 ευὐλογιας ADFL ιλο-
yeas cett.), 569. 21 exaveravoaro (sic) ADFL, and the omissions
which they have in common:

539. 27. ουτος de εξεισιν---Αζωτιων χωραν |
550. 21. yap wv avOpwros—ovveatpace δε gic on ΘΗ.

554. 8. προς ευφροσυνην--ελυθη τη δε

That D is a direct transcript of A is proved by its omitting
exactly a line of A, so that on p. 558.9 it reads peradopnpeva (sic)
σοι διαμενη, where the lines in A are divided thus: perado|rixos
ὧν Kat peyadomepns ουδεποτ av ἀπολιποι δοξης ινα Oe Ta προειΐρημενα
σοι διαμενη. Moreover, certain marginal notes in A, which are
there almost illegible, have been copied by D, where they are all
clear: e.g. on 553. 25 ὃ καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος εἶπεν Fee πῶς ev ὀλίγῳ

508 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

;
μεγάλα κατώρθωσεν, ὅτι, φησίν, οὐδέποτε πράγματα ἐπιβαλὼν ἠμελήθη.
At 541. 11 συμβουλευοντῶ of A (the stroke over the being very ;
faint) has become συμβουλευοντα in D. That F is a direct tran-
script of A is proved by its repeating a line of A twice over,
reading at 550. 16 a μεν €TL και νυν εκαστον αποτελειν" nv yap ovT@ |
διατεταγμενον ὑπὸ tov βασιλεως a μεν ετι και νυν opas’ ooa yap
x.t.A. The lines in A are arranged thus: exeAevoe τὴν ετοιμασιαν
εἰς | exagTov αποτελειν᾽ ἣν yap ουτω διατεταγμενον ὑπὸ του βασιλεως
a μεν ετι και νυν | opas’ οσαι yap κιτιλ. Lastly, that L is a direct
transcript of A appears from 529. 21, where L omits the words
συνιδειν πραγματων---καλλονὴν εκελευσε Which form exactly a line ;
in A. Just below (530. 1) L negligently inserts in the text (where
it is quite unsuitable) after rov χρυσου a gloss which occurs in the
margin of A, and which is quoted in the apparatus criticus.

These cases appear to put the parentage of these three MSS.
beyond a doubt, and their evidence has therefore not been recorded
in the apparatus. The few deviations from their parent MS. which
they exhibit may be neglected.

‘The group GIM(Q).

This group presents few substantial variants from the HKA
text. It differs chiefly from that text in matters of orthography,
the frequent use of itacisms, etc. Its retention of two lines which
are omitted by HKA (see above) proves that it is not derived
from the immediate parent of those MSS., while its omission of
another line in common with HKA is proof that both groups go
back to a common ancestor rather higher up in the line.

G, CODEX VENETUS. Venice. Bibl. Marciana, Gr. 534, saec.
xi. (circa, Zanetti’s catalogue) membr. 296 foll.

OL, αν Aristeas.
6vo. Theodoret to Hypatius.
4. Catena on the Octateuch.

296. πόσαι παραδόσεις εἰσὶ τῆς θείας γραφῆς.

Size of page 125 Χο in., of writing 9?x7 in. It is written in
minuscules hanging from ruled lines in one column containing 67 closely
packed and closely written lines, the whole of the Aristeas being com-
pressed into 54 leaves. The Aristeas with the Theodoret seems to
have been tacked on to the MS. later, as there is a second numbering
of pages (a, B, y, etc.) beginning on fol. 7, but it is by the same hand
as that which wrote, at any rate, the first few lines of the Catena;
the text of the Septuagint appears to have been the work of several
hands. The Aristeas is very much stained and blotted, especially the
first leaf, which has been in parts rewritten, but in places the writing
is utterly illegible. In the Venice Catalogue it is placed first in an
‘Appendix Graecorum Codicum ex legato Jacobi Contareni, Jo. Bapt.

Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 509

Recanati Aliorumque’; a note in the catalogue adds ‘catenam hanc
in Bibliotheca Julii Justiniani D. M. Procuratoris vidit Montfauconius
et descripsit in Diario Italico}?.’

I, CODEX PALATINUS. Rome. Bibl. Vatic. Pal. Gr. 203, saec.
xl, membr. 304 foll.

ie a Aristeas.

22: Theodoret to Hypatius.

23vo. Catena on Genesis and Exodus.

304vo. ends in the middle of Exodus. At the end is written ‘deest
unum et alterum folium.’

It is written in double columns, the words hanging from ruled lines :
the size of page being 1211 ΧΊΟΣ in., of writing 114x343 in. The
Aristeas and the Catena are by the same hand. The bookplate (ap-
parently common to ail the Palatine collection) has the words ‘Sum
de bibliotheca, quam Heidelberga capta spolium fecit et P. M. Gregorio
XV trophaeum misit Maximilianus utriusque Bavariae Dux etc. S. R. I.
Archidapifer et Princeps Elector, anno Christi MDCXXIII.’

M, CODEX OTTOBONIANUS. Rome. Bibk Vatic. Ottobon. Gr.
32, saec. xv. chart. 70 foll.

fol. r—1I4. Παλλαδίου περὶ τῶν τῆς ᾿Ινδίας ἐθνῶν καὶ τῶν Βραγμάνων.

15, 16. blank.

a , ? 4 ? εὖ Cee = a 3

I7—27- τοῦ φιλοπόνου ᾿Ιωάννου eis τὸ ἐπίλοιπον τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκρο-
άσεως.

28. blank.

29—44. τοῦ φιλοσοφωτάτου καὶ ῥητορικωτάτου Kiipov Θεοδωρούτου
προδρόμου.

45—7ovo. ᾿Αριστέας Φιλοκράτῃ.

Size of page τ4ξ Χ οἱ in., of writing 9}x5 in.; the writing is in
single column, bounded by two vertical lines, but no horizontal lines
are visible. The contents are all written by the same neat hand in
which the tall τ is the chief characteristic ; the Aristeas sheets are rather
broader than the rest. On the first leaf is written a list of the contents
and the name of a former owner of the MS.: ‘ Anonymi Geographia,
Philosophia anonym., Palladius de rebus et moribus Indicis, Aristeas.
Ex codicibus Ioannis Angeli Ducis ab Altaemps?.’

1 See Montfaucon, Diar. /tal. (Paris, 1702), 433 ff., where a list of
the MSS. in Justinian’s library is given, including a Catena on the
Octateuch of the eleventh century. This is apparently the MS. referred
to in the Venice Catalogue ; but Montfaucon does not appear to mention
that it contained Aristeas. ᾿

2 The library of Colonna was bought by Jean Ange duc d’Altemps in
1611; in 1689 part of the collection was transferred to the Ottobonian
palace. See Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 71... ἃ Paul V. (Paris, 1890),

PP- 57—59-

510 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

GIM agree in almost all cases, including omissions such as
528. 10 om ασφαλως GIM, mistakes such as 529. [4 καταθηκουσας
GIM (xa@nx. cett.), 534. 1 μεγάλοις GIM (peyador cett.), 552. 26
δυναμενων GIM (dvvauewy cett.), and peculiarities of spelling and
vocalization. They almost always insert v ἐφελκυστικόν before
consonants, write iota adscript, interchange o and @ (προτευουσα,
πασχωμεν [-- πασχομεν], perapepov [=-wv]) and « and ἡ (φιλικοος,
δαψηλως, τινικαυτα, mpodiAws), and use itacisms such as βουλεσθε
for βουλεσθαι, αιρειν for εριν.

It appears that G and I are copied from one and the same
MS.; their contemporary date and a few cases where they are
at variance (e.g. 520. 12 ἡ madera αὐτὴ G, ἡ παιδειας διαγωγή 1) make
it improbable that either is a transcript of the other.

M is undoubtedly a direct copy of I. With the exception of
some slight corrections or blunders on the part of M, they are in
entire agreement. Notice e.g. 531. 5 πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν τὴν τραπεζαν
IM (την τραπ. προς τὴν xp. cett.), 540. 7 pera IM (μεταλλα cett.),
541. 3 γεγραπται IM (γεγραφεναι cett.), 543. 25 βροτων 1M (βρωτων

cett.), 571. 24 ypadns IM (peraypadns cett.). At 573. 21 M omits
the words καὶ ta ακολουθα παντα, which form exactly a line in the

double-column MS. I. The readings of M have therefore not been
recorded in the apparatus.

To this group appears also to belong:

Q, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 950, saec. xiv.
bombycinus, 576 pagg.

This MS. contains a very miscellaneous collection of fragments

beginning with (p. 1) an anonymous fragment on the resurrection, (p. 2)

a fragment of Athanasius on the heresy of Paul of Samosata, and in-

cluding (p. 111) a fragment on the ten feasts of the Jews, and (p. 217)

an anonymous work on the measurement of the earth. On p. 341 occur —

the letters of Abgarus and Christ, on p. 343 a fragment of Photius,
‘de termino vitae et de Spiritus Sancti processione,’ on pp. 351—371
the fragments of Aristeas, followed on p. 371 by the treatise already
included περὶ τῶν δέκα ἑορτῶν (here given at greater length), and other
fragments which need not be enumerated. The Aristeas fragments
are not a sixth part of the letter ; they are (p. 351) 520. 15 inc. κατα-
σταθεις emt THS—521. Q ὑποχειρια ποιουμενος, and (p. 353) 529. 24 ine.
δυο πήχεων TO μηκος---537. 21 προκαθημενου πρὸς Gewpravy. They are
introduced by the heading ἐπιστολῆς ἀρίιστεως προς Φιλοκρατὴν exppacis.
χρυσης τραπεζὴῆς nv εἐποιησεν o βασιλευς ἸΠτωλομαιος και απεστειλεν εἰς
Ἱερουσαλὴμ προς Tov τοτε apxtepea Eeafapov. Omont’s catalogue merely
calls the fragments ‘De Ptolemaeo rege et lege mosaica’; the folio cata-
logue of 1740 more correctly describes them as ‘fragmenta ex Aristea.’

There are 24 lines in a page; the writing is rough and untidy with
thick strokes, and very rough red initial capitals. Its readings and
spellings connect it with the GIM group, e.g. 532. 28 λιαν (for λειαν),
534. 8 avacracw (for avaracw), 535. 4 σμιξιν (for σμηξιν).

Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 51!

The group TBCPSZ.

We now come to a group which presents considerable varia-
tions from those which we have considered. The readings of this
group are at first sight attractive and have the appearance of repre-
senting a purer text. A closer examination will however, show
that a certain amount of revision must have gone on here, not
only in some common ancestor of the group, but also in the in-
dividual members of it. We find that various members of the
group have sometimes corrected the text in different ways, that
even where they are consistent in their readings, they seldom
have the support of Eusebius, who has introduced other slight
alterations of his own into the text, and again we find that in
places the reading of the HKA and GI groups, which the B text has
rejected, is corroborated by the usage of Alexandrian papyri which
are contemporary or nearly contemporary with the pseudo-Aristeas.
While, then, in some places it is possible that the B text has
retained or has successfully restored the right reading, the text
of this group is usually to be regarded with suspicion, as an in-
genious attempt to remove the obscurities of a Greek which had
become unintelligible. The group is here spoken of as the B
group, because the MS. B is that on which Schmidt’s text was
based, and it is also the MS. which exhibits the greatest number
of variants ; but a far older member of the group and one which
exhibits the Aristeas text entire has now come to light, namely
the Florence MS. T, which we will describe first.

T, CODEX LAURENTIANUS. Florence. Bibl. Mediceo-Laurent.
Acquisti 44.

According to the Catalogue of Rostagno the date of the Aristeas,
Pentateuch and Catena is the tenth century, of Joshua and the remaining
books about the thirteenth. It seems doubtful whether the former part
is earlier than the eleventh century. The material is parchment: number
of leaves 384: size of page 144 x121in. There are quires of 8 leaves
with signatures of the (?) thirteenth century. To the end of the Pen-
tateuch the writing is in single column with 46 lines in a page; in the
latter part there are two columns with 65 lines to ἃ page. The writing
hangs from ruled lines.

fol. 1. Aristeas to Philocrates.
1tvo. Introduction to O.F. books: τὰ ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ βίβλῳ ava-

γεγραμμένα τεύχη....... διατί ἕκαστον τούτων οὕτως καλεῖται καὶ ἀπὸ μέρους
τί περιέχει ἕκαστον...

14vo. Theodoret, εἰς τὰ ἄπορα τῆς θείας γραφῆς.
ΕΒ: Pentateuch with Catena.

311. Joshua—Chronicles, Esdras 1— 3, Esther, Judith, Maccabees
1—4, Tobit (to 3. 15).

512 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

It contains the inscription, ‘Codicem e Liguria advectum propo-
nente A. M. Bandinio comparavit Ferdinandus III magnus dux Etruriae
et Bibl. Laurent. donavit die 3 Aug. MDCCXCVIII.’

B, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 129, saec. xtiil.
bombycinus, 539 foll.
ὃ προσ
[0]1.2. Aristeas inc. (522. 12) ἅνων υποτιθεμενος λοΎον.
15. Catena on the Octateuch.

It is written in double columns: size of page 13} x 9} in., of writing
1034 x 34 in.; the writing is enclosed by vertical lines, but there are no
horizontal lines except at the top and bottom of the page. The Aristeas
is in bad condition, being torn and stained. There are a few plain red
initial letters. The writing is rather sloping, and fairly large and clear.
Schmidt says, ‘This MS. has been subsequently collated most carefully
with its original by the rubricator, when the writer himself had already
performed this duty quite conscientiously. Hence all corrections of the
rubricator and of the first hand are equivalent to the authority of the
original MS.’ A later hand has added a few headings in the margin
(περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου, etc.). The Catena is apparently by the same hand
as the Aristeas, but has more ornamentation and red initials. In some
places part of a leaf has been cut or torn away.

C, CODEX REGIUS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 5, saec. xilil.—xiv.
chart. et bombyc., 402 foll.

fol. 1. Aristeas fragments.
14. Anonymous introduction to the books of the O.T. (inc. To μεν
ουν βιβλιον).
45. Catena on the Octateuch.

The Aristeas is written in a single column: the size of page being
124 Χο in., of writing varying from 9 x 7 in. to 7?x sin. The Aristeas
and the introduction to O.T. are by the same hand, a large square
upright writing with thick strokes and red initials in the margin: the
page is unruled. In the latter part of the MS., foll. 45—60 are written
in double columns in a rougher hand; at fol. 61 the first hand begins
again, and the remainder is sometimes in single, sometimes in double
columns, text and commentary coming alternately and the order of
books being confused (Judges, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers). The
fragments of Aristeas contained are less than half the letter; they are
528. 17 Σαββαταιος---532. 17 δυο μεν σαν TH, 553. 10 O δε εἰπεν εὐχομε-
vos—563. τό npwra, 567. 7 -σιλευ Kporw de—end.

P, CODEX BARBERINUS. Rome. Bibl. Barberina Gr. Iv. 56,
5466. ἢ xill. membr., 229 foll.

fol. 1. Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis (frag.).
inc. πάσα ypadn nuwv των Χριστιανων θεοπνευστος εστι, at
end λειπει.

Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 513

a: Fragment of Aristeas inc. (538. 10) πινοησαντες᾽ τῆς yap xwpas
expl. (568. 1) περιβαλλοντας To (nv ws (note λειπει).

Io. Catena on the Octateuch.

224. Catena on the Apocalypse inc. dye (sic) τον τῆς συντελειας

'καιρον.

It is written in double columns in a very minute upright and neat
hand, with about 60 lines packed into a column, the words hanging
from ruled lines ; the size of page is 9? x 7 in., of writing 83x 32 in. At
the bottom of fol. 1 is written ‘ Caroli Strozzae Thomae filii 1635.’

S, CODEX VATICANUS. Rome. Vat. Gr. 1668, saec. ? xiii.
membr., 358 foll.

It is written in single column, with 29 lines in a page, the size
of page being 125 Χ 88 in., and the writing hanging from ruled lines;
there are quires of 8 leaves.

fol. 1—37vo. Aristeas (complete).
37v0.—358. Catena on Genesis.

On the recto of the first leaf is the note ‘ Emptus ex libris ill™ Lelii
Ruini ep' Balneoregien. 1622.’

This MS. escaped notice when the other Roman MSS. were
examined and has consequently not been collated in full; but some
collations of selected passages kindly made by Mr N. McLean,
Fellow of Christ’s College, are sufficient to show that it belongs
to this group.

Z, CODEX TURICENSIS. Zurich. Stadtbibliothek C. 11 (169
Omont’s catalogue), saec. xili. bombyc., 736 pagg.!

p- 1. Aristeas.

p- 1 (=21). Catena on the Octateuch.

p- 669. Τερωνυμου επιστολὴ προς Δεἕτρον erapxov mpaitwpt απὸ
ρωμαικ εἰς ελληνικα μεταβληθεισα (‘S. Hieronymi liber de viris illustribus
a Sophronio graece versus,’ Omont). It is written in single column,
the size of page being 13} Χο in., and the writing hangs from ruled
lines. The Aristeas portion is badly preserved; a hole passes through
the twenty pages which contain it, causing lacunae. There are several
marginal readings, some of which are obviously conjectural (e.g. wws
φιλοφρονησεσι, ισως waddov). The Jerome is not by the hand which has
written the remainder of the MS. ᾿

That the above MSS. form a single group appears primarily
from their omissions. The following lines are omitted by all? the

1 The greater part of this MS. was collated from the original. The
collation of the last few pages has been made from photographs, for
which the writer is indebted to the courtesy of the Librarian, Dr Hermann
Escher.

2S omits (1), (3), and (7). It has not been tested for the other

passages.
Se 33

514 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

members of the group which are extant at the several passages
referred to.

(1) 523. 9. εγκρατεις eyevovro—ka τὴν χωραν (78 letters) om

(2) 529. 11. βουλεσθαι και---δισταζειν δὲ (51 letters) om BCTZ.
(3) 532. 17. απο τῆς Bacews—ropera και (48 letters) om BTZ.
(4) 533. 13. θεσιν nOehkev—as αν τις (41 letters) om BTZ.

(5) 547. 12. και κακοποιουσι--τροφην adda (48 letters) om

(6) 548. 13. -ras nuepa θυσιαζειν---οἱ προσφερον- (46 letters) om

(7) 552. 13. γενοιο---τὴ περι σεαυτον (47 letters) om BPTZ.
(8) 564. 25. θεου de—rois αξιοις (45 letters) om BPTZ.
(9) 566. 24. ησαν yap ικανοι πρεσβεις (20 letters) om BPTZ.

Also at 533. 4 the words προς την τῆς αληθειας-- τεθεντων (48
letters) are omitted by ΤῊ 5Ζ (C and P do not contain the passage) ;
but they are inserted in the margin of T, apparently by the first
hand, and are found in B. These omissions show that an ancestor
of the group was written by a careless scribe who dropped several
lines (averaging 48 letters) of his archetype. From the last instance —
quoted, and from numerous other passages, it appears that B and
T bear a specially close relationship ; indeed it is conceivable that
B is a copy of T, but in that case it has introduced several cor-
rections of its own, not found in the parent MS.!

As to the value of the readings of this group, it appears that
the ‘singular’ readings of B are in nearly all cases due to a
correction of the text. Instances of these are 522. 18 the insertion
of ev Aoyw before βραχει, 525. 12 eav ovy φανηται σοι ἐννομον B (eav
ουν φανηται Cett., εαν ουν φαινηται Eus.). The phrases εαν φαινηται
σοι and εαν φαινηται are abundantly attested by the Alexandrian
papyri in petitions of subordinates to high officials, but the insertion
of ἐννομὸν receives no support. Again we have 526. 13 χαριστηριον
B (χαριστικον cett. Eus.), 527. 18 avdpes των τετιμημενων παρα cot
Ανδρεας και Αριστεας B (Avdpeas των ter. παρα σοι και Ap. cett.: B
has misunderstood the genitive), 529. 18 oa yap ws δαψίιλους ths
vAns αὐτοις ovons B (ere yap emt τα τῆς ovons cett. Eus.), 538. 1 σχῆμα
B (xupa=‘size’ cett.: B has removed a characteristic word of
Aristeas, cf. 521. 17,567. 11). The readings of BT, where the other
members of the group are opposed to them, are also generally to be
rejected : e.g. 525.25 νομίσματα BT (νομίσματος cett. Eus. Jos.), 526.25
δυναμενους BT (duvarovs cett. Eus.): they have occasionally cor-
rected the order of words, 551. 19 διατελοιη exwv BT (εχ. dar. cett.),

1 The divergence of the two subdivisions of the B group is seen in the
difficult passage (531. 6) where BT omit the words wore καὶ τὴν των
κυματων Beow, while CSZ retain them and add πεποιῆσθαι καθ o αν μερος.

Introduction to the letter of Aristeas. 515

569. 5 των ἰδιωτων tives BT (τινες τ. 10. cett.). Where however the
members of the group unite as against the HKA and GI groups,
the reading gains in probability, and more especially is this the
case where the group has the support of either Eusebius or the GI
group. Thus in 526. 2 ανασπαστους BTZGI Eus* (αναρπαστους
HKA), 526. 6 mpoovras B°"TZ Eus. (παροντας cett.), 547. 7 ins και
πότων PZGI Eus' (om cett.), the B reading is right. But in some
places the whole group has been affected by correction. Thus in
519. 11 TSZ (the only extant members at this point) read eavrovs
προεδωκαμεν εἰς TOY προειρημενον avdpa πρεσβειαν, but the reading
eauTous ἐπεδωκαμεν κιτιλ. Of the other MSS. is corroborated by the
usage of the papyri of the second century B.c. (Paris Pap. 49
καταπεπειραμαι...εἰς παν TO σοι χρήσιμον εμαυτον επιδιδοναι, Par.
Pap. 63 col. 6 προθυμως eavrovs επιδιδοντων, Grenfell, Erotic
Fragment, etc. XLII. 6 εἰς τε παν To παρανγελλομενον | rpobuplws
eauTous επιδεδωκοτων).

A few instances where correction is seen at work may be
quoted. At 550.10 HKAGI read παντα δυναμιν εἰπε παρεσται καθη-
KovT@s, ots συγχρησησθε (-σεσθε), καμοι μεθ υμων. Παντα δυναμιν,
which is clearly wrong, is corrected by BTZ to πασαν δυναμιν,
by P to παντίΞξεπανθ)α δυναιμὴν ; παρεσται is further corrected by
BT to mapeorava and καμοι to Kaye, corrections which give a gram-
matical but hardly an intelligible sentence. The slight alteration
of δ᾽ υμιν for δυναμιν (a correction which Wendland also appears
to have adopted) restores sense to the passage, and the B text
is seen to be due to conjecture. Similarly at 555.1 B and P
have corrected in different ways the characteristic word amednvaro
(‘answer’), B reading εἰπε and P amexpuaro: a little before (553. 21)
B reads αποκρινεσθαι where the remaining MSS. have αποφαι-
νεσθαι. At 527. 1 BTZ read τον αρχισωματοφυλακα (B at first wrote
σωματοφυλακα: Tov αρχισωματοφυλακων cett.), thus removing an
idiomatic use of the genitive, frequently attested by the papyri.
The above instances will afford sufficient proof that a good deal
of recension has gone on in this group. At the same time it is
clear that in other places it has escaped the corruptions which
the other groups have undergone, though it is sometimes difficult
to say whether a reading of this group is primitive or due to
correction. The agreement of the group with Eusebius (where
his evidence exists) is, as was said, sometimes a test; but in the
majority of cases the B text is not corroborated by Eusebius, and
in a few instances where one or two members only of the group
agree with Eusebius, this appears to be due to a fortuitous coin-
cidence in emendation. Such passages are 548. 4 μυθωδως B Eus.
(θυμωδως cett. incl PTZ): 527. 4 γραφε BT Eus. (γραφων cett.).
In the latter instance Eusebius altered the form of the sentence
by reading ypade and inserting yap after κεχαρισμενος ; in BT
the change to ypade was due to κεχαρίσμενος eon having become

eR Ὁ

516 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

corrupted to καὶ χαρισαμενος eon ; the participle γραφων is corrobo-
rated by Josephus (ἐπιστέλλων περὶ ὧν ἂν θέλῃς ποιήσεις κεχα-

ρισμένα).

The extracts of Eusebius, consisting of about a quarter of the
letter, are contained in the eighth and ninth books of the Praefa-
ratio Evangelica (Vil. 2—5, 9, 1X. 38). The Eusebian MSS. which
are to be followed in these books are, as Heikel! has shown, I
(Codex Venetus Marcianus 341) and O (Codex Bononiensis 3643).
The extracts from Aristeas in these two MSS. have been collated
for the present text, and their evidence is quoted as Eus' and Eus’.
For the other Eusebian MSS. the text of Gaisford (Oxford, 1843)
has been used ; O was unknown to Gaisford, and his collation of
I was incomplete. The Venice MS. by its general agreement
with the Aristeas MSS. shows itself to be far the best text of
Eusebius ; the Bologna MS. or one of its ancestors has been very
carelessly copied, and there are numerous omissions which did
not always appear worthy of record in the apparatus to the present
text. With regard to the value of the Eusebian text, it may be
well to quote the verdict of Freudenthal? on the general character
of his extracts from earlier writers. He says, ‘Eusebius shows
himself more reliable in the text (Wortlaute) of his originals than
in the names and writings of the excerpted authors. It is true
that he occasionally allows himself small alterations in the text,
most frequently in the opening words of the extracts. He often
abbreviates his originals, drops repetitions (beseitigt Doppel-
glieder), omits individual words and whole sentences, and no small
number of inaccuracies of other kinds are also to be met with.
On the other hand it is only in extremely rare cases that he inserts
additions of his own, and the cases in which we meet with funda-
mental alterations of the text are still more uncommon.’ This
estimate is quite borne out by the Eusebian extracts from Aristeas,
where there are frequent instances of slighter alterations and
omissions, which the paraphrase of Josephus often helps us to
detect. Among omissions we have 520. 16 εἰ δυνατον om Eus. (ins
Jos. Ar. codd.), 525. 10 καὶ πολιτευομενων om Eus. (ins Ar. codd. :
Jos. however omits the words in his paraphrase, and they may
be a gloss). Of alterations we may note out of numerous instances
525. 24 where the strange word ρισκοφυλακας 15 altered ἴο χρημα-

τοφυλακας (Jos. paraphrases τοὺς φύλακας τῶν κιβωτῶν, ἐν αἷς ἐτύγ-

χανον οἱ λίθοι), 526.17 επικρινων κατεστησα (a bad correction, because

1 De Praeparationis Evangelicae Eusebit edendae ratione (Helsing-
forsiae, 1888).

2 Hellenistische Studien, Alexander Polyhistor (Breslau, 1875) p. 7 f.
See also the note on p. 203 on Eusebius and Pseudo-Aristeas.

:

Introduction to the letter of Aritsteas. 517

the royal plural used throughout the rest of the letter of Ptolemy
is dropped), 527. 24 κατα πολλοὺυς τροπους (κατα πολλους Ar. codd.
‘in many individual instances’), 572. 9 axpiBos (ηκριβωμενως Ar.
codd.), 573. 2 κατα δε την aitnow (κατα de τὴν aveow Jos. Ar. codd.).
In a few cases a rather longer addition is made; at 544. 22 before
τῶν συγγενικων the words oute των ὑποβεβηκοτων ovre and at 546. 14
the words ἐπὶ των πολεων καὶ orxnoewv δια To σκεπαζεσθαι are
probably the insertions of Eusebius; just before the last passage
(546. 11) ovvtnpovvtas τας apxas kat μεσοτῆτας και TeAevTas 15 an
unintelligible alteration of the correct reading καὶ συντηρουντος.
Among passages where Eusebius is certainly right may be men-
tioned 526. 2 ανασπαστους Eus' GIBTZ (αναρπαστους cett.), 542. 10
ἐνδεικτικως (ενδικως Ar. codd.), 547.7 the insertion of καὶ ποτῶν
Eus! GIPZ, and lastly 541. 21. The readings in this passage are
instructive:

(1) προς τα δι ἡμων επιζητηθεντα Eus.
(2) προς δι nuov επιζητηθεντα GIMZ*.
(3) προς ἡμων επιζητηθενιτα HKADFL.
(4) προς δε ημων επιζητηθεντων BPTZ™.

Eusebius preserves the true text; the ra then dropped out,
and while in the HKA group the reading was still further cor-
rupted, in the B group sense was restored to the passage by a
conjectural emendation. Passages where Eusebius and Josephus
unite as against the Aristeas MSS. are 524. 18 avaypadgns (αντι-
ypadns Ar.), 525. 5 τετυχηκε (rerevye Ar.), 526. ὃ omission of the
negative, ἢ 528. 7 the perfect ἀπεσταλκαμεν (Jos. has the perfect
πεπομφαμεν : απεστειλαμεν Ar.), 572. 20 ποιητων Jos. Eus. B (ποιη-
τικων OF ποιητικως Ar. cett.); in such cases the patristic reading
should generally be followed. On the whole the Eusebian evidence
is of the greatest importance ; it tends to show that the GI group,
especially if supported by any member of the B group, is nearest
to the primitive text.

Lastly, with regard to the evidence of Josephus, he gives in the
twelfth book of the Jewish Antiquities a paraphrase of about two-
fifths of the letter, omitting the central portion, namely the visit to
Palestine, the discourse with Eleazar and the seventy-two questions
and answers. He has taken the trouble to reshape nearly every
sentence, while retaining many of the characteristic words of
Aristeas. Under the circumstances it is not always possible to
teconstruct his text, and at some of the most difficult passages his
evidence is uncertain ; in some cases the text was certainly unin-
telligible to him. He is however often useful in enabling us to
detect the alterations which have been introduced into the text
by Eusebius or the B group. It is needless to add that Niese’s
text of Josephus has been followed.

Beside the MSS. of Aristeas above mentioned the following

518 Introduction to the letter of Aristeas.

are known to the present writer, which he has not had the oppor-
tunity of collating: Codex Monacensis 9 (saec. xi.), quoted in
Mendelssohn’s fragment of the text, Codex Atheniensis 389 (circa
saec. xv., chart., foll. 328, Aristeas and Catena)!, Codex Sco-
rialensis 3. 1. 6 (dated 1586, and written χειρὶ Νικολάου Τουρριανοῦ
καὶ βασιλικοῦ ἀντιγραφέως, Aristeas and Catena on Genesis and
Exodus)?.

The collations here given are not absolutely complete. Ita-
cisms and other orthographical details have not been generally
recorded, neither have all the slight omissions of the Codex O
of Eusebius or of the fragment Q of Aristeas ; but.apart from these
no substantial variants have, it is hoped, been omitted. The dates
of the various correctors’ hands have not been accurately ascer-
tained ; the symbol B!, T! has been used to denote a correction
probably by the first hand or a hand nearly contemporary with
the date of the MSS. B and T. Words are enclosed within
daggers Τ t where the MS. reading is left in the text, although
probably corrupt ; angular brackets < > denote emendations of,
or insertions introduced into, the reading of the MSS. ; square
brackets [ ] signify that words found in the MSS. are probably to
be omitted.

1 Κατάλογος τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς ἐθν. βιβλ. τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου
Σακκελλίωνος καὶ ᾿Αλκ. I. Σακκελίωνος (Athens, 1802).

2 E. Miller, Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibl. de 1 Escurial
(Paris, 1848).

1ΙΟ

15

20

APIZTEA= @IAOKPATEI

3 , ΄ > , \ A CLA
Αξιολόγου διηγήσεως, ὦ Φιλόκρατες, περὶ τῆς γενηθείσης ἡμῖν
5 ’ ΟῚ > A Ν ἴω 5 4 > , 7]
ἐντυχίας πρὸς EXealapov tov τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχιερέα συνεσταμένης,
Ν XN Ἂς x ~ ~ » 7 ε ᾽ὔ
διὰ τὸ σὲ περὶ πολλοῦ πεποιῆσθαι, παρ᾽ ἕκαστα ΤὐπομιμνήσκωνΎ,
an es > , , a
συνακοῦσαι περὶ ὧν ἀπεστάλημεν καὶ διὰ TL, πεπείραμαι σαφῶς
5» ’ὔ Ν Ν a Ὁ if i ,
ἐκθέσθαι cor, κατειληφὼς ἣν ἔχεις φιλομαθῆ διάθεσιν, ὅπερ μέ-
Ὑιστον ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ, ΠΡ ἀεί τι καὶ ροσλαμβώμει,
ἤτοι κατὰ τὰς ἱστορίας, ἢ καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα Tei pan aa
οὕτω yap κατασκευάζεται ψυχῆς καθαρὰ διάθεσις, ἀναλαβοῦσα τὰ
/ ‘\ ‘\ Ν ἊΝ 3
κάλλιστα' καὶ πρὸς τὸ πάντων κυριώτατον νενευκυῖα, τὴν εὐσέβειαν,
3 a , a \ ΄, »
ἀπλανεῖ κεχρημένη κανόνι διοικεῖ τὴν προαίρεσιν. ἔχοντες
ε nw οἷ , r nw ’,
ἡμεῖς πρὸς τὸ περιέργως τὰ θεῖα κατανοεῖν, ἑαυτοὺς ἐπεδώκαμεν εἰς
Ν , ΝΜ / , Ν Su
TOV προειρημένον ἄνδρα πρεσβείαν, καλοκαγαθίᾳ καὶ δόξῃ προτε-
΄ὕ A a A ΄ὕ
τιμημένον ὑπό τε τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ κατακεκτημένον
, > , “ aN ε ἘΞ \ a κ \ ”
μεγίστην ὠφέλειαν τοῖς σὺν ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τοὺς ἀλλους
/ {A Ν ΝΣ ec / A » / ἣν \ /
τόπους πολίταις, πρὸς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ θείου νόμου, διὰ TO yeypa-
a) 3 > a 3 ὃ , ε - a / ἃ ἈΝ Ν
φθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν διφθέραις ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν. ἣν δὴ καὶ
3 ie ε “ a / \ ᾿ς Ν /, Ν
ἐποιησάμεθα ἡμεῖς σπουδῇ. λαβόντες καιρὸν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα περὶ
A U “ Ν A
τῶν μετοικισθέντων εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐκ τῆς Ιουδαίας ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς
A , , , / M3 ἣν Ν Ν Ν
τοῦ βασιλέως, πρώτως κεκτημένου τήν τε πόλιν καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν
vo Ν “ ΜΔ A
Αἴγυπτον παρειληφότος. "Δέιόν ἐστι καὶ ταῦτά σοι δηλῶσαι.
7 ρειλη
/ ΄“- ΄, Ἂν Ν ,ὔ
πέπεισμαι γάρ, σὲ μᾶλλον ἔχοντα πρόσκλισιν πρὸς τὴν σεμνότητα,
\ A 3 a Ny \
καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων διάθεσιν τῶν κατὰ τὴν σεμνὴν νομο-

, / Ν = , la 3 ΄,
θεσίαν διεξαγόντων, πέρι ων προαιρούμεθα «δηλοῦν, ασμενὼς σε:-

2 εὐτυχιας GZ | συνισταμενῆς T 3 λυπομιμνησκοντα (sed -σκων codd
omn) 4 wy] ov Καὶ 6 προσμανθανοντι Ζ = =T om και] | κατ αὐτο] κατα
ταυτο HKAGI πεπειραμενων HKGIT 8 διαθεσις καθ. Καὶ 9 κυριω-
τερον Καὶ 11 προεδωκ. TZ 12 rere. TZ 13 κατεκτημ. HAI
κατακτ. G txt KTZ 16 αὐτου T 19 om ta TZ 21 προσκλησιν
codd 23 δηλουντες μεν ws σε codd, txt ex conj Schmidt

HKAGITZ

8 Jos Eus 0

HKAGIQ
TZ Jos Eus

520 APISTEAS

3 ’ ied 4 oA
ἀκούσεσθαι, προσφάτως παραγεγενημένον ἐκ τῆς νήσου πρὸς
ε lal Ν 7 7 Ν A“
ἡμᾶς, καὶ βουλόμενον συνακούειν ὅσα πρὸς ἐπισκευὴν ψυχῆς
ε ΄ Ν ΄ δὲ ὃ ΄, Ν τ 4
ὑπάρχει. καὶ πρότερον δὲ διεπεμψάμην σοι, περὶ ὧν ἐνόμιζον
> , > Ν 3 ΄ ἃ λά Ν al
ἀξιομνημονεύτων εἶναι τὴν ἀναγραφήν, ἣν μετελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν
Ἀ “
κατὰ τὴν λογιωτάτην Αἴγυπτον λογιωτάτων ἀρχιερέων περὶ τοῦ
/ A 3 ὃ ΄, A Ν 5» ΄, Ν a ὃ
γένους τῶν Ιουδαίων. φιλομαθῶς γὰρ ἔχοντί σοι περὶ τῶν δυνα-
/ 3 λῃ / 7, 3 Ν ΄ ΄ Ν A
μένων ὠφελῆσαι διάνοιαν δέον ἐστὶ μεταδιδόναι, μάλιστα μὲν πᾶσι
a ε ,ὔ a Ν A \ ΄ 3, Ν σ 3
τοῖς ὁμοίοις, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ γνησίαν ἔχοντι τὴν αἵρεσιν, οὐ
/ Ν Ν Ν 3 A a Ν / 5 Ν ψ a
μόνον κατὰ τὸ συγγενὲς ἀδελφῷ καθεστώτι τὸν τρόπον, ἀλλὰ Kal TH
\ \ a ¥ an A ‘ a
πρὸς τὸ καλὸν ὁρμῇ τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα ἡμῖν. χρυσοῦ yap χάρις ἢ
’, ” ad s Ν a / > ΄
κατασκευή τις ἀλλὴ τῶν τετιμημένων παρὰ τοῖς κενοδόξοις ὠφέλειαν
3 4 \ > ΄ μέ ε ,ὔ > Ν Ν ε \ ΔΕ
οὐκ ἔχει τὴν αὐτήν, ὅσον ἢ παιδείας ἀγωγὴ καὶ ἡ περὶ τούτων
/ 7 Ν Ν Ν “~ ΄ὔ ΄ 3 / /
φροντίς. ἵνα δὲ μὴ περὶ TOV προλεγομένων μηκύνοντες ἀδόλεσχόν
Ν Ν Ν lal / ,
τι ποιῶμεν, ἐπὶ TO συνεχὲς τῆς διηγήσεως ἐπανήξομεν.

᾿ Κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης Δημήτριος 6
Φαληρεὺς ἐχρηματίσθη πολλὰ διάφορα πρὸς τὸ συναγαγεῖν, εἰ
δυνατόν, ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην βιβλία: καὶ ποιούμενος
3 \ Ν Ν a's / μὰ g 26 a \
ἀγορασμοὺς καὶ μεταγραφὰς ἐπὶ τέλος ἤγαγεν, OTOV Eh ἑαυτῷ, τὴν

“- 7 , , > ε A > / /
τοῦ βασιλέως πρόθεσιν. παρόντων οὖν ἡμῶν ἐρωτηθείς Πόσαι

Ν 7 ΄, ΄ φ «ε Ν Ν »
τινὲς μυριάδες τυγχάνουσι βιβλίων; εἶπεν Ὑπὲρ τὰς εἴκοσι,
βασιλεῦ: σπουδάσω δ᾽ ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ πρὸς τὸ πληρωθῆναι πεντή-

γῳ χρόνῳ πρ po 7
4 \ ΄ ΄ / Ν a? ΄
κοντα μυριάδας τὰ λοιπά. προσαγγέλλεται δέ μοι καὶ τῶν Ιουδαίων
νόμιμα μεταγραφῆς ἀξια καὶ τῆς παρὰ σοὶ βιβλιοθήκης εἶναι.
Τί τὸ κωλῦον οὖν, εἶπεν, ἐστί σε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι: πάντα γὰρ ὑποτέ-
τακταί σοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. 6 δὲ Δημήτριος εἶπεν
ε / a“ al Ν 297 Ν \ 2 /
Eppnveias προσδεῖται. χαρακτῆρσι yap ἰδίοις κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίων
χρῶνται, καθάπερ Αἰγύπτιοι τῇ τῶν γραμμάτων θέσει, καθὸ καὶ

A ἰδί 5, ε ny ͵ὕ ww ~ ΄ 6 A δ᾽
φωνὴν ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν. ὑπολαμβάνονται Συριακῇ χρῆσθαι: τὸ

3 διεπεμψ,. σοι] διεπεμψαμεθα G 6 σοι] μοι conj Schmidt 7 μα-
λιστα] μαλλον ἃ 8 γνησιως G 12 παιδεια αὐτὴ G παιδειας diay. I
14 ποιουμεν Z παθωμεν Git | επανηξωμεν Καὶ 16 om εἰ δυνατον Eus
19 οὖν ins Eus om Ar codd 21 σπουδασω Eus πληρώσω Ar 22 προσ-

nyyeATat Eus | των] pr 7a Eus 24 εστι ce] avta G | ἀαποτετακται Eus
28 υπολαμβανονται] -- de Eus

15

25

»-

190

15

20

25

30

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 521

33 Ὁ
οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερος τρόπος. Μεταλαβὼν δὲ ἕκαστα ὃ βασιλεὺς
a“ Ν ΄, a > od
εἶπε γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅπως τὰ προειρημένα
Ι \ 53 Ξε
τελείωσιν λάβη.“ Νομίσας δὲ ἐγὼ καιρὸν εἶναι περὶ ὧν πολ-
΄ὔ ’, ~ 4
λάκις ἠξιώκειν Σωσίβιόν τε τὸν Ταραντῖνον καὶ ᾿Ανδρέαν, τοὺς
“ ’ ~
ἀρχισωματοφύλακας, περὶ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως TOV μετηγμένων ἐκ
lal > rd ε Ἀ “): Ν cal /, > “ Ν > Ν
τῆς Ἰουδαίας ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως---ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἐπελθὼν
Ν Ν ’ὔ ’ Ν ’ hd , > /
τὰ κατὰ κοίλην Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην ἅπαντα, συγχρώμενος εὐημερίᾳ
Ν 3 ᾿ , Ν Ν ’ὔ a ar > , id /
μετὰ ἀνδρείας, τοὺς μὲν μετῴκιζεν, οὗς δὲ ἡἠχμαλώτιζε, φόβῳ πάντα
΄α΄ a“ an
ὑποχείρια ποιούμενος - ἐν Gow Kal πρὸς δέκα μυριάδας ἐκ τῆς τών
Ἴ : ΄, ΄ 3 AZ ΄, 9158 ε \ a. Τὰ
ουδαίων χώρας εἰς Αἴγυπτον μετήγαγεν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὡσεὶ τρεῖς μυριάδας
“~ A 4 ΄“
καθοπλίσας ἀνδρῶν ἐκλεκτῶν εἰς τὴν χώραν κατῴκισεν ἐν τοῖς
/ ΒΞ Ὑ Ν Ν / ε had 3 / \ lad
φρουρίοις. ἤδη μὲν καὶ πρότερον ἱκανῶν εἰσεληλυθότων σὺν τῷ
Ν 7 A
Πέρσῃ, καὶ πρὸ τούτων ἑτέρων συμμαχιῶν ἐξαπεσταλμένων πρὸς
Ν a 3 4 / / Ν ΄, 3 3 3
τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι σὺν Ψαμμιτίχῳ: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ
A -“ , / 7 ων ε A
τοσοῦτοι τῷ πλήθει παρεγενήθησαν, ὅσους Τ]τολεμαῖος ὃ τοῦ
’ὔ / ‘ Ν 4 > / Ἀ 5 6
Λάγου petyyaye’ καθὼς δὲ προείπομεν, ἐπιλέξας τοὺς ἀρίστους
lal ε 4 Ν Ὅν. 4 ’ Ν Ν Ν ’
ταῖς ἡλικίαις καὶ ῥώμῃ διαφέροντας καθώπλισε, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν χύμα
lal Ν
πρεσβυτέρων καὶ νεωτέρων, ἔτι δὲ γυναικῶν, εἴασεν εἰς τὴν οἰκετίαν,
a ~ ε
οὐχ οὕτως τῇ προαιρέσει κατὰ ψυχὴν ἔχων, ὡς κατακρατούμενος
an A \ “- “
ὑπὸ τῶν στρατιωτῶν, du ἃς ἐπεποίηντο χρείας ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς
ἴω « ~ 7 > “
ἀγῶσιν---ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐπεί τινα παρεύρεσιν εἰς τὴν ἀπόλυσιν αὐτῶν
ἧς ’,
ἀπελάβομεν, καθὼς προδεδήλωται, τοιούτοις ἐχρησάμεθα λόγοις
’ὔ ’ ” > ΕἸ ve
πρὸς Tov βασιλέα Μήποτε ἄλογον ἢ ἐλέγχεσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν
an , Ss ἴω a an
τῶν πραγμάτων, ὦ βασιλεῦ. τῆς yap νομοθεσίας κειμένης πᾶσι
ὅν, Ἢ ,ὔ ἃ ¢ “- > 4 4 > “ 3 Ν Ν
τοῖς Ιουδαίοις, ἣν ἡμεῖς οὐ μόνον μεταγράψαι ἐπινοοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
“ / a 3 ΄
διερμηνεῦσαι, τίνα λόγον ἕξομεν πρὸς ἀποστολήν, ἐν οἰκετίαις
“ “a ~ “ 2 \
ὑπαρχόντων ἐν TH σῇ βασιλείᾳ πληθῶν ἱκανῶν ; ἀλλὰ τελείᾳ καὶ
- 3 / N
πλουσίᾳ ψυχῇ ἀπόλυσον τοὺς συνεχομένους ἐν ταλαιπωρίαις,
΄, ΄ \ , , 9 = ~ ᾿
κατευθύνοντός σου τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ τεθεικότος αὐτοῖς θεοῦ τὸν

/ \ ’ Ν , / ,
νόμον, καθὼς περιείργασμαι. τὸν γὰρ πάντων ἐπόπτην καὶ κτίστην

4 niwoa συνεχως τους περι τον Tap. G 5 σωματοφυλακας A | εκ] απο
TZ 8 μετοικ. Z | ovs] τους Grid 11 εκλελεγμενων T | κατελιπεν ἃ
12 wev]+ouv I | cxavws H | συνεληλ. Z | om σὺν T 14 Αιθ.] Αιγυπτιων T
15 τω πληθ. om TZ 18 vewr. και πρεσβ. I δε7- και Καὶ 21 επει] επι
ΑΙ 26 ικετειαις Καὶ 28 απολυσας G 29 σου] σοι ΤΖ

«“ Eus

:ο

HKAGIQ
TZ Jos

8 Β

522 APISTEAS

\ © / a Ν ΄ ε lal / a“ ,
θεὸν οὗτοι σέβονται, ὃν καὶ πάντες, ἡμεῖς δέ, βασιλεῦ, προσονομά-
“-“ ‘ / “ > 3 An
ζοντες ἑτέρως Ζῆνα καὶ Δία’ τοῦτο δ᾽ οὐκ ἀνοικείως οἱ πρῶτοι
« ~ / nw
διεσήμαναν, dv ὃν ζωοποιοῦνται τὰ πάντα καὶ γίνεται, τοῦτον
ε / c “ ’ὔ Ν / ε Ν Ν 4, > ’
ἁπάντων ἡγεῖσθαί τε καὶ κυριεύειν. ὑπερηρκὼς δὲ σύμπαντας ἀνθρώ-
~ ~ ~ ’ὔ’ - a
mous τῇ λαμπρότητι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπόλυσιν ποίησαι TOV ἐνεχομένων
A ΄ ΄ Ν ς Ν
ταῖς οἰκετίαις. Οὐδὲ πολὺν χρόνον ἐπισχών, καὶ ἡμῶν κατὰ
~~ ’
ψυχὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐχομένων, τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτοῦ κατασκευάσαι
Ν Ν Ν bi 3 “-“ , Ν x “ Ν /
πρὸς TO τοὺς ἅπαντας ἀπολυθῆναι (κτίσμα yap dv θεοῦ τὸ γένος
“ 3 ΄ ἴω > “
τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ μεταλλοιοῦται καὶ τρέπεται πάλιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ"
Ν Lal Ν / 5 4 Ν 4 Ν
διὸ πολλαχῶς καὶ ποικίλως ἐπεκαλούμην τὸν κυριεύοντα κατὰ
’ 7 ~ A » 4 ΕῚ 4 ,ὔ
καρδίαν, ἵνα συναναγκασθῇ, καθὼς ἠξίουν, ἐπιτελέσαι: μεγάλην
X > 3 ὃ Ν , § > , θέ λό Ψ
γὰρ εἶχον ἐλπίδα περὶ σωτηρίας " ἀνθρώπων, προτιθέμενος λόγον, ὅτι
\ 3 ΄ ε x ΄ A 3 7 ἃ \ \ :
τὴν ἐπιτέλειαν 6 θεὸς ποιήσει TOV ἀξιουμένων: ὃ yap πρὸς δικαιο-
΄ Ἂς a 3, > / > ε ΄ / »”
σύνην καὶ καλῶν ἔργων ἐπιμέλειαν ἐν ὁσιότητι νομίζουσιν ἄνθρωποι
“A 4 Ν / Ν Ν > Ν c "¢ ε ,
ποιεῖν, κατευθύνει τὰς πράξεις Kal τὰς ἐπιβολὰς ὃ κυριεύων ἁπάντων
΄, - an / /
θεός), ὃ δὲ διανακύψας καὶ προσβλέψας ἱλαρῷ τῷ προσώπῳ Πόσας
Ν >
ὑπολαμβάνεις μυριάδας ἔσεσθαι; ἔφη. παρεστὼς δὲ ᾿Ανδρέας
΄ “- cal /, >
ἀπεφήνατο Βραχεῖ πλεῖον μυριάδων δέκα. 6 δέ, Μικρόν ye, εἶπεν,
3 7, δ... ὧς > a A τ' f ‘ Ν δ" ΄
Ἀριστέας ἡμᾶς ἀξιοῖ πρᾶγμα. Σωσίβιος δὲ καὶ τῶν παρόντων
Ν a > > 5 Ν 4 / > “ ~~ 4 9g
τινὲς τοῦτ᾽ εἶπον Kai yap ἀξιόν ἐστι τῆς TAS μεγαλοψυχίας, ὅπως

- ΄ A “- -“ ,
χαριστήριον ἀναθῇ τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ τὴν τούτων ἀπόλυσιν. μεγίστως

HKAGIBT
Z Jos

“~ ~ Ν rd
γὰρ τετιμημένος ὑπὸ τοῦ κρατοῦντος τὰ πάντα καὶ δεδοξασμένος
\ ’ὔ \ a 4 - /
ὑπὲρ TOUS προγόνους, εἰ καὶ μέγιστα ποιήσεις χαριστήρια, καθῆκόν
’, Ν > lal > lal
ἐστί σοι. Διαχυθεὶς δὲ εὖ μάλα τοῖς ὀψωνίοις εἶπε προσθεῖναι,
Ν ’ὔ Ν Ν ’
καὶ σώματος ἑκάστου κομίζεσθαι δραχμὰς εἴκοσι, καὶ περὶ τούτων
3 a / Ν Ν > με a 3 “ἢ
ἐκθεῖναι πρόσταγμα, τὰς δὲ ἀπογραφὰς ποιεῖσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτά,
ΔΛ “ “ “-“ lal ,
μεγαλείως χρησάμενος TH προθυμίᾳ, τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν πᾶσαν ἐπιτελέ-
a ‘ Ν a
σαντος ἡμῶν προαίρεσιν, καὶ συναναγκάσαντος αὐτὸν ἀπολυτρῶσαι

1) μόνο ὺ ληλυθό D ὃ D πατρός. ἀλλὰ καὶ
μὴ μόνον τοὺς συνεληλυθότας τῷ στρατοπέδῳ τοῦ πατρός, ὰ

1 w βασιλευ TZ 2 erepws Ar codd] ετυμως hic hab Jos sed fort pro
οὐκ ανοικειως | (nva* (al ζην᾽ a) και δια Touro ὃ codd (6 om T) 3 τουτων Z
5 amon. ποι. αποποιησαι I 6 ικετιαις I 8 ov] wy Z 12 om yap

TZ | νυποτιθεμενος B* (προστιθ. Bor) | ore Z 13 δικαιοσ.} eXenuoovvny ἃ
15 βουλας B επιβουλ. T 16 διακυψας A ανακυψας G 18 Βραχει] pr
ev Noyw B βραχυ K | evdexa Jos 19 aiwG 24 εφηὴ Β 25 dpayyas I

10

15

20

25

10

15

20

25

®IAOKPATEI. 523

” a ED! \ A , 6 > Ν 7
εἴ τινες προῆσαν, ἢ μετὰ ταῦτα παρεισήχθησαν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν.
ce Ν \ / 14 ΝΣ / > / > Ν ~
ὑπὲρ Ta τετρακόσια τάλαντα THY δόσιν ἀπέφαινον εἶναι. Kal TOD
\ ΄, 4 μὰ
προστάγματος δὲ τὸ ἀντίγραφον οὐκ ἄχρηστον οἴομαι κατακε-
Ἅ “ Ν c / / ἈΝ ΜᾺ
χωρίσθαι. πολλῷ γὰρ ἢ μεγαλομοιρία φανερωτέρα καὶ εὐδηλος
δ lal A lal 4, 3. ἔφ, \ ’
ἔσται τοῦ βασιλέως, τοῦ θεοῦ κατισχύοντος αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σωτηρίαν
“ > “ “a , ΄
γενέσθαι πλήθεσιν ἱκανοῖς. ἦν δὲ τοιοῦτο τοῦ βασιλέως προσταξαν-
ν ~ an Ν ε a Ἀ
τος Οσοι τῶν συνεστρατευμένων τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν εἰς τοὺς κατὰ
΄, Ν , / 5 4 Ν a > / /
Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην τόπους ἐπελθόντες τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων χώραν
κα ΄ > oA N A , »”
ἐγκρατεῖς ἐγένοντο σωμάτων ᾿Ἰουδαϊκῶν καὶ ταῦτα διακεκομίκασιν εἴς
Ν ’ὔ ἃ, \ / Xv \ / ε Ζ' 4, ’, Ν Ν
τε τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν ἢ καὶ πεπράκασιν ἕτέροις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ
μι “ ‘\ ἈΝ a / v3 ~
εἴ τινες προῆσαν ἢ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσιν εἰσηγμένοι τῶν τοιούτων,
9 “-“ » / , ,
ἀπολύειν παρὰ χρῆμα τοὺς ἔχοντας, κομιζομένους αὐτίκα ἑκάστου
’ὔ \ , wn ~ 2 ,
σώματος δραχμὰς εἴκοσι, TOUS μὲν στρατιώτας TH τῶν οψωνίων
δό Ν Ν Ν Ἂν εἰ ἂν a r “~ / ΄,ὔ
ὄσει, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς τραπέζης. νομίζομεν
wn c “ ’ Ν Ν Ν “A
yap καὶ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν βούλησιν Kai παρὰ τὸ καλῶς
ΝΜ 5 wn ’ὔὕ Χ XN /
ἔχον ἠχμαλωτεῦσθαι τούτους, διὰ δὲ THY στρατιωτικὴν προπέτειαν
/ , > A / Ν Ν “-“ > ’ὔ Ν
τήν τε χώραν αὐτῶν κατεφθάρθαι καὶ τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων μεταγωγὴν
\ Δ 2 Ν > ε Ν ΄ς ’ὔ
εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον γεγονέναι: ἱκανὴ yap ἣν ἡ παρὰ τὸ πεδίον
4 na A Ε] / \ a > /
γεγονυῖα ἐκ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὠφέλεια: διὸ παντελῶς ἀνεπιεικής
ε A , 7 nw 3 5 ¢ ἊΝ
ἐστι καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καταδυναστεία. πᾶσιν οὖν ἀνθρώποις τὸ
/ > Δ / A Ν “ A > /
δίκαιον ἀπονέμειν ὁμολογούμενοι, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἀλόγως
7 An ~ Ν “ ” /
καταδυναστευομένοις, Kal κατὰ πᾶν ἐκζητοῦντες TO καλώς ἔχον πρός
ἣν ’ / / 7
TE TO δίκαιον καὶ THY κατὰ πάντων εὐσέβειαν, προστετάχαμεν ὅσα
~ -“— A / ’ὔ “ 3. Ὁ la)
τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν ἐστι σωμάτων ἐν οἰκετίαις «πανταχῆ:- καθ᾽ ὃντινοῦν
’, a ,ὔ , Ν ᾿ \ /
τρόπον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ, κομιζομένους τοὺς ἔχοντας TO προκείμενον
/, > / ἣν fg , Ν 4 Ν
κεφάλαιον ἀπολύειν, καὶ μηδένα κακοσχόλως περὶ τούτων μηδὲν
3 a Ν 3 3 Ν 3 Cis ish ,ὕ 2 se Ch
οἰκονομεῖν: τὰς 6 amtoypadas ἐν ἡμέραις τρισίν, ah ἧς ἡμέρας
~ Ν , “ Ἂς ᾿ς / ἈΝ
ἐκκεῖται τὸ πρόσταγμα, ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τοὺς καθεσταμένους περὶ

2 ὑπερ] Fort deperiit aliquid ante hoc verbum | τριάκοσια TB (τὴ
3 κατακεχωρισθαι ΒΤ 4 Z (-ησθαι)}] κατακεχωρισται cett 9 εγκρατει----
τὴν xwpav 10 om BTZ 12 κομιζομενου T 13 dpayuas BTZ | τους} -Ἐ
exovras BTZ 17 om των BTZ 21 ομολογουμενως HKAGIT* vid

-μενοις ZT Vid txt ex corr Schmidt 23 παντα B 24 εστι]- των
HAGI | οἰκεταις TZ [|πανταχὴ ex conj] παντι μὴ HKAITZ παντα μὴ G
παντι B| ovtwa ουν KBT 28 κατεσταμενους HKATZ κατεσταλμ.

GI

HKAGIBT

Z Jos

8 Eus

HKAGIBT
Z Jos Eus

524 APISTEAS

4 ’, > Ν Ν Ν / , Ν \
τούτων, καταδεικνύντας εὐθὺ καὶ TA σώματα. διειλήφαμεν yap καὶ
-“ cal ~ 3 ~ ἈΝ
ἡμῖν συμφέρειν καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιτελεσθῆναι. τὸν δὲ
,ὔ » Ν “ Ε] ’ὔ 5 9 Φ lal /
βουλόμενον προσαγγέλλειν περὶ τῶν ἀπειθησάντων, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τοῦ φανέν-
"6 a
Tos ἐνόχου τὴν κυρίαν ἕξειν: τὰ δὲ ὑπάρχοντα τῶν τοιούτων εἰς
΄, A ΄
τὸ βασιλικὸν ἀναληφθήσεται. Εἰσδοθέντος τοῦ προσταγ-
σ΄ > - cal “ ἈΝ >” ’ὔ’ > »”
patos, ὅπως ἐπαναγνωσθῇ τῷ βασιλεῖ, τὰ ἀλλα πάντ᾽ ἔχοντος
-“ A xX a ,
πλὴν τοῦ Kat εἴ τινες προῆσαν ἢ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσηγμένοι εἶσι
lal a Ν #
τῶν τοιούτων, αὐτὸ τοῦτο 6 βασιλεὺς προσέθηκε, μεγαλομοιρίᾳ
\ ͵ὕ / > / 4 - ΄ ,
καὶ μεγαλοψυχίᾳ χρησάμενος, ἐκέλευσέ τε τῶν διαφόρων δόσιν
> -“ ~ ΄
ἀθρόαν οὖσαν ἀπομερίσαι τοῖς ὑπηρέταις τῶν ταγμάτων καὶ βασι-
» ~ ¢ εἾ e -“
λικοῖς τραπεζίταις. οὕτω δοχθὲν ἐκεκύρωτο ἐν ἡμέραις ἑπτά" πλεῖον
Ν , ε , ee / ε , 2 4 Ν Ν Ν
δὲ ταλάντων ἑξακοσίων ἑξήκοντα ἡ δόσις ἐγεγόνει. πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ
τῶν ἐπιμαστιδίων τέκνων σὺν ταῖς μητράσιν ἐλευθεροῦντο. προσαν-
΄’ὔ a
ενεχθέντος εἰ καὶ περὶ τούτων εἴκοσα δραχμία δοθήσεται, Kal τοῦτ᾽
Bia oe ε \ ~ ε a Ν a / 9 ?
ἐκέλευσεν ὃ βασιλεὺς ποιεῖν, ὁλοσχερῶς περὶ τοῦ δόξαντος ἅπαντ
ἐπιτελῶν.
~ / Lal
Ὡς δὲ κατεπράχθη ταῦτα, τὸν Δημήτριον ἐκέλευσεν εἰσδοῦναι
περὶ τῆς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶν βιβλίων ἀναγραφῆς. πάντα γὰρ διὰ
/ Ν / 3 / - A ͵
προσταγμάτων καὶ μεγάλης ἀσφαλείας τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τούτοις
5 a Ν ὑδὲ 3 ,ὕ ὑδ᾽ > “~ ὃ / \ A a
LWKELTO, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπερριμμένως οὐδ᾽ εἰκῇ. διόπερ καὶ TO τῆς
εἰσδόσεως καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν ἀντίγραφα κατακεχώρικα, καὶ τὸ
τῶν ἀπεσταλμένων πλῆθος καὶ τὴν ἑκάστου κατασκευήν, διὰ τὸ
/ Ν / / - 3 - cal Q ΕἸ ,ὔ
μεγαλομοιρίᾳ καὶ τέχνῃ διαφέρειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν. τῆς δὲ εἰσδό-
σεώς ἐ ἱντίγραφον τόδε Βασιλεῖ LA ὰ A f
ς ἐστιν ἀντίγρ τ ασιλεῖ μεγάλῳ παρὰ Δημητρίου.
4 ¢ / “ Ν “a 3 3 XN ,
προστάξαντός σου, βασιλεῦ, περὶ τῶν ἀπολιπόντων εἰς τὴν συμπλή-
A / 7 “»
ρωσιν τῆς βιβλιοθήκης βιβλίων, ὅπως ἐπισυναχθῇ, καὶ τὰ διαπεπ-

τωκότα τύχῃ τῆς προσηκούσης ἐπισκευῆς, πεποιημένος οὐ παρέργως

3 ep ὦ ex conj (cf 3 Macc 338)] εφη codd εφην Ivid 5 εἰσδοθεντος]
+ov Β 7 exaK | y] εἰ GIZ 10 ovcavy]+doow Β 11 πλείων TZ
12 εξηκ. kat τετρακοσ. Jos 13 ηλευθ. B 15 ολοσχ. ποι. o B. B
17 τω Δημήητριω BT | εκδουναι Eus' et Joscoddalia 18 avaypadys Jos et
Eus] αντιγραφης Ar codd omn 19 acdaX.] ακριβειας Eus 20 dtwxnTo
Ar codd txt Eus (διωκειται Eus°) | καὶ 1°] ins Eus om Ar [τὸ Eus] τα Ar
21 exdocews BTZ Eus‘odd alia 24 avriypagov (-φα B) ectw ovrws BT
25 mpooreraxoros Eus® | ἀαπολειῴθεντων Eus 26 rys]+ δια Eus°

10

15

20

25

®IAOKPATEI. 525

X > , > , /, / A Ψ
τὴν ἐν τούτοις ἐπιμέλειαν, προσαναφέρω σοι τάδε. τοῦ νόμου
A Ν Ν
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων βιβλία σὺν ἑτέροις ὀλίγοις τισὶν ἀπολείπει" τυγχάνει
XA ε “ na / Ν ~ δ / > λέ δέ Ν
γὰρ Ἕ βραϊκοῖς γράμμασι καὶ φωνῇ λεγόμενα, ἀμελέστερον δέ, καὶ
’ -“" /
οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει, σεσήμανται, καθὼς ὑπὸ Tov εἰδότων προσανα-
΄ ’ Ν a > ’ὔ ΄ Pn 9 \
φέρεται: προνοίας yap βασιλικῆς ov τέτευχε. δέον δέ ἐστι Kal
Ay ε / , A Ν Ν ‘\ ,
ταῦθ᾽ ὑπάρχειν παρά σοι διηκριβωμένα, διὰ τὸ Kai φιλοσοφωτέραν
> Ἄν: Σ ὦ ἮΝ, 4 , € Ἂ > ,ὔ Ν
εἶναι καὶ ἀκέραιον τὴν νομοθεσίαν ταύτην, ὡς ἂν οὖσαν θείαν. διὸ
7 na Ν \ Ν A -"
πόρρω γεγόνασιν οἵ τε συγγραφεῖς καὶ ποιηταὶ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἱστορικῶν
A “- ΄“ ΄, Ν -“
πλῆθος τῆς ἐπιμνήσεως τῶν προειρημένων βιβλίων, καὶ τῶν κατ᾽
A ἈΝ /
αὐτὰ πεπολιτευμένων καὶ πολιτευομένων ἀνδρῶν, διὰ τὸ ἁγνήν τινα
Ν Ν > Ν > 3 “ θ ΄ -“ ε “- ε
καὶ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρίαν, ws φησιν Ἑκαταῖος 6
3 3 A , \
Αβδηρίτης. ἐὰν οὖν φαίνηται, βασιλεῦ, γραφήσεται πρὸς τὸν
5 / Ν > ε 4 > ~ Ν 4 “
ἀρχιερέα τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, ἀποστεῖλαι τοὺς μάλιστα καλῶς
» " A x
βεβιωκότας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους ὄντας avdpas, ἐμπείρους τῶν κατὰ
Ν ’ Ν ε al Sees Cees a Ψ Ψ Ν ΄ >
TOV νόμον TOV ἑαυτῶν, ab ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἕξ, ὅπως TO σύμφωνον ἐκ
a / > / \ ’ Ν \ Ν ε /
Tov πλειόνων ἐξετάσαντες καὶ λαβόντες TO κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν
- “ a / ~
ἀκριβές, ἀξίως καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων Kal τῆς σῆς προαιρέσεως, θῶμεν
ΕΥ̓ κα δι. Ἂς, , a Ν 3 4 ,
εὐσήμως. εὐτύχει διὰ παντός. Τῆς δὲ εἰσδόσεως ταύτης γενο-
‘ ~ QA >
μένης, ἐκέλευσεν ὃ βασιλεὺς γραφῆναι πρὸς τὸν EAedlapov περὶ
“
τούτων, σημάναντας καὶ τὴν γενομένην ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν αἰἶχμα-
΄ Ν ~
λώτων. ἔδωκε δὲ καὶ εἰς κατασκευὴν κρατήρων τε Kal φιαλῶν Kat
τραπέζης καὶ σπονδείων χρυσίου μὲν ὁλκῆς τάλαντα πεντήκοντα
καὶ ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ λίθων ἱκανόν τι πλῆθος.
> , Ν \ ε ip “ , = xX a
ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς ῥισκοφύλακας τοῖς τεχνίταις, ὧν ἂν προαιρῶνται,
4 Ν /
τὴν ἐκλογὴν διδόναι, Kat νομίσματος eis θυσίας καὶ ἄλλα πρὸς

/ ε / ΄ £ Ν na a ε xv
τάλαντα ἑκατόν. δηλώσομεν δέ σοι περι τῆς κατασκευῆς, WS ἂν

τὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν ἀντίγραφα διέλθωμεν. ἦν δὲ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως
ἐπιστολὴ τὸν τύπον ἔχουσα τοῦτον Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος

1 εν] emt H | rade] τα de cum seqq conj Ar Eus 5 reruxnxe Jos
Eus | eve Eus 10 avras Ar et Eusi®. Fort βιβλων supra legendum | κάι
πολιτευομενων om Eus et Josvid 11 om φησιν Eusi 12 om ovy Eus? |
φαιν. Eus] φανηται Ar codd φανηται σοι ἐεννομον B 14 om οντας Eus
15 ag Jos Eus] e¢ HAGIBT 18 exdocews Eus! 20 σημαναντα Ar
txt Eus et Jos¥i4 (δηλουνταΞς) | γεναμενην GBYITZ 23 ικανων I καλον
Eus' 24 χρηματοφυλ. Eus | om ros Eus' | om αν BTZ | προαιρουνται B

25 νομισματα B txt codd cett Eus Jos

HKAGIBT
Z Jos Eus

HKAGIBT
Z Jos Eus

526 APISTEAS

> , 9 ~ , a n~ 3 Ν ’ /
Edealapw ἀρχιερεῖ χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι. ἐπεὶ συμβαίνει πλείονας
ων ἃ ΄ 9 \ ε ΄ ΄ ΄ , >
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν χώραν κατῳκίσθαι γενηθέντας ava-
/ 3 A ε , «ες Ν “ > a 5 ΄
σπάστους ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὑπὸ Περσῶν, καθ᾽ ὃν ἐπεκράτουν
’ὔ »Μ Ν A / “ ν ε ~ ΕῚ ἈΝ »
χρόνον, ἔτι δὲ Kal συνεληλυθέναι τῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν εἰς THY Αἴγυπτον
ΕἸ , 3 > - ,ὔ 5 Ν Ν ’ὔὕ
αἰχμαλώτους,-- - ἀφ᾽ ὧν πλείονας εἰς τὸ στρατιωτικὸν σύνταγμα
, murs. ΄ ΄, ε , \ \ \ ,
κατεχώρισεν ἐπὶ μείζοσι μισθοφορίαις, ὁμοίως δὲ Kal τοὺς προόντας
- “ \ “
κρίνας πιστοὺς φρούρια κτίσας ἀπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς, ὅπως τὸ τῶν Αἰγυ-
/ \ oF 6 al ,
πτίων ἔθνος φόβον [μὴ] ἔχῃ διὰ τούτων: Kal ἡμεῖς δὲ παραλαβόντες
- A lal cal \ X
τὴν βασιλείαν φιλανθρωπότερον ἀπαντῶμεν τοῖς πᾶσι, πολυ δὲ
“ las “ / e Ν ΄ 49 5 ΄, >
μᾶλλον τοῖς σοῖς πολίταις---ὑπὲρ δέκα μυριαδας αἰχμαλώτων ἡλευ-
/ “ “ > ‘ ΄
θερώκαμεν, ἀποδόντες τοῖς κρατοῦσι τὴν κατ᾽ ἀξίαν ἀργυρικὴν τιμήν,
, Ν ” a 2 ΄ Ν Ν a μή ε ΄
διορθούμενοι καὶ εἴ TL κακῶς ἐπράχθη διὰ τὰς τῶν ὀχλων ὅρμάς,
A A “. - , A Ἢ
διειληφότες εὐσεβῶς τοῦτο πρᾶξαι, καὶ τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ χαριστικὸν
> θέ a Le) \ B x 4 > 5 / Ν δόξῃ /
ἀνατιθέντες, ὃς ἡμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν ἐν εἰρήνῃ Kat δόξῃ κρατίστῃ
΄ >/ ἈΝ
παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην διατετήρηκεν: εἴς τε τὸ στράτευμα τοὺς
al ε Ν οὐ
ἀκμαιοτάτους ταῖς ἡλικίαις τετάχαμεν, τοὺς δὲ δυναμένους καὶ περὶ
lal τὸν \ \ an ΄
ἡμᾶς εἶναι, τῆς περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν πίστεως ἀξίους, ἐπὶ χρειῶν καθεστά-
΄, ἀξ καί: A Ν ΄ὔ / Ν “ -
καμεν. βουλομένων δ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ τούτοις χαρίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσι Ξοῖς
\ / > / a , A
κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ᾿Ιουδαίοις Kai Tots μετέπειτα, προῃρήμεθα τὸν
lal A “ A >
νόμον ὑμῶν μεθερμηνευθῆναι γράμμασιν ἑλληνικοῖς ἐκ TOV παρ
“ oo ΄“ ο , Ν -“ >
ὑμῶν λεγομένων ἑβραϊκῶν γραμμάτων, ἵν᾿ ὑπάρχῃ καὶ ταῦτα παρ
“ ΄ lal 4 “- ΄ “
ἡμῖν ἐν βιβλιοθήκῃ σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις βασιλικοῖς βιβλίοις. καλῶς
- ε wn ? ͵7ὔ < ’ὔ 4
οὖν ποιήσεις καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας σπουδῆς ἀξίως ἐπιλεξάμενος avdpas
lal ’ lal , \
καλῶς βεβιωκότας πρεσβυτέρους, ἐμπειρίαν ἔχοντας τοῦ νόμου, καὶ
Ν ε lal > 7 © , -“ “5 σ > a /
δυνατοὺς ἑρμηνεῦσαι, ap ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἐξ, ὅπως ἐκ τῶν πλείονων
Ν ’ e ~ Ν \ 3 / > N /
TO σύμφωνον εὑρεθῇ, διὰ TO περὶ μειζόνων εἶναι τὴν σκέψιν.

οἰόμεθα γὰρ ἐπιτελεσθέντος τούτου μεγάλην ἀποίσεσθαι δόξαν.

1 ere: συμβ. KZ Eus] επισυμβαινει codd cett 2 κατοικεισθαι Ar codd
κατωκεισθαι Eus txt JosYi4 | avapracrous HKA Eus*4¢ txt GIBTZ Εἰμὶ
4 συνεισελ. GIT Eusi 5 wv)+Ka Eus 6 mpoovras BOYTTZ Eus]
mapovras HKAGIB* vid 8 un hab Ar codd omn om Jos Eus recte ut
videtur | exe GI 11 apyup. κατ. αἕξ. Z 13 πρασσειν Eus | χαριστη-
ριον B txt codd cett Eus 14 δοξη]- τὴ Eus 16 και om GI 17 rns]
pr και Eus | agiws ZT? | ἐπι χειρων κατεστακαμεν (-noauev B) Ar codd em-
κρινων κατεστησα Eus txt emend Schmidt 21 υμιν (-wv') eBp. Ney. Eus
23 επιλεξας Eus txt Ar Jos 25 δυναμενους BT

σι

10

15

20

®IAOKPATEI. 527

3 / Ν Ν 4 3 / a 5 a
ἀπεστάλκαμεν δὲ περὶ τούτων ᾿Ανδρέαν τῶν ἀρχισωματοφυλάκων
ee) oo /, 3 Cae 4 Ν 4
καὶ ᾿Αριστέαν, τιμωμένους Tap ἡμῖν, διαλεξομένους σοι καὶ κομί-
3 Ν > Ὄ τῷ Ἁ 5 / ‘ > ἊΨ XN RE 6
Covras ἀπαρχὰς εἰς TO ἱερὸν ἀναθημάτων Kai eis θυσίας Kai τὰ ἄλλα,
3 ΄, 4 ε , ΄ Ν Ν Ν Ν ca bie 58
ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑκατόν. γράφων δὲ καὶ σὺ πρὸς ἡμᾶς περὶ ὧν ἐὰν
ir / μὴ Ν δῖ, εἰς ’ LE e 5 i
βούλῃ κεχαρισμένος ἔσῃ, καὶ φιλίας akiov τι πράξεις, ws ἐπιτελεσ-
\ e Ἃ a” Ν
θησομένων τὴν ταχίστην περὶ ὧν ἂν αἱρῇ. ἔρρωσο. Πρὸς
, Ν 3 Ν 3 / > ΄ «ε 3 /
ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἀντέγραψεν ἐνδεχομένως ὃ ‘EXedlapos
ἴω 37). ΄ 3 Ἁ A“ / 4
ταῦτα Ἐλεάζαρος ἀρχιερεὺς βασιλεὶ Πτολεμαίῳ φίλῳ
/ Δ > , 4 \ ε ’ὔ 3 /
γνησίῳ χαίρειν. αὐτός τε Eppwoo καὶ ἡ βασίλισσα ᾿ΑἈρσινόη,
, “ \ ε
n ἀδελφή, καὶ τὰ τέκνα, καλῶς av ἔχοι καὶ ὡς βουλόμεθα, καὶ
3 Ν Ν ε ’ / Ν ‘\ “ 3 / ,
αὐτοὶ δὲ ὑγιαίνομεν. λαβόντες τὴν Tapa σοῦ ἐπιστολήν, μεγάλως
> , \ Ν Α ’ Ν ᾿᾿ Ν / Ν
ἐχάρημεν διὰ τὴν προαίρεσίν σου καὶ τὴν καλὴν βουλήν, καὶ συνα-
A “ a 7 = a
yayovres τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος παρανέγνωμεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα εἰδῶσιν ἣν ἔχεις
Ν Ν Ν ε A > , > SN se Ν \ Ν / ἃ
πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἡμῶν εὐσέβειαν. ἐπεδείξαμεν δὲ καὶ τὰς φιάλας ἃς
~ Lal , ~
ἀπέστειλας, χρυσᾶς εἴκοσι Kai ἀργυρᾶς τριάκοντα, κρατῆρας πέντε,
/ Ν Ἁ “-“
καὶ τράπεζαν εἰς ἀνάθεσιν, καὶ εἰς προσαγωγὴν θυσιῶν καὶ εἰς
3 \ Ξ Ἃ 4 A de \ Ξ- s ΄ὔ ε , C7
ἐπισκευὰς ὧν av δέηται TO ἱερὸν ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑκατόν, ἅπερ
~ / 2 /, n~ / Ν 5: Ν > id 4
ἐκόμισεν Avdpéas τῶν τετιμημένων παρὰ σοὶ καὶ ᾿Αριστέας, avdpes
δ \ Ἁ > 6 \ ‘ ὃ 7 ὃ / ἈΝ “~ A > ~ \
καλοὶ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ καὶ παιδείᾳ διαφέροντες Kal τῆς σῆς ἀγωγῆς Kal
΄ὔ ” Ν ΄ a \ toa Pp
δικαιοσύνης ἄξιοι κατὰ TAVTA* οἱ καὶ μετέδωκαν ἡμῖν TA παρὰ σοῦ,
\ > ε “" 4 ε , a A ὔ
πρὸς ἃ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀκηκόασιν ἁρμόζοντα τοῖς σοῖς γράμμασι.

/ . ov ἈΝ Ἀ > Ν 4 3 ’ 3 /
πάντα yap 07a σοι συμφέρει, καὶ εἰ παρὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, ὑπακουσό-

6 A Ν XN ae ΄ a/ 3 / \
με α' τοῦτο yop du tas και αγαπήησεως σήμειον E€OTL. μεγάλα γάρ.

Ν 3 ’ Ν " ε a Ν Ν 3 ,
καὶ ἀνεπίληστα τοὺς πολίτας ἡμῶν κατὰ πολλοὺς εὐηργέτηκας.

1 τουτων Jos Eus] τουτου Ar | τον αρχισωματοφυλακα Β (αρχι sup lin
prima manu) TZ Jos txt Ar codd cett Eus! (των cwp°) 2 ἀρισταιον Jos
Eus?° (-εαν Eus' cum Ar codd) | κομιζοντες Z 4 ypage BT Eus txt codd
cett et Jos’i4 | αν B Eus® (εαν Eus! cum codd cett) 5 κεχαρ.] και xape-
σαμενος Ar codd κεχαρισμενος yap Eus 7 TauT. την επ.] ταυτα Eus°?
8 rade Eus! (ovTws°) 9 εἰ auros Te ερρωσαι Eus txt (cf 2 Macc 930, 11°78)
Ar codd (-σαι Z) 12 συναγοντες K 13 ανεγνωμεν Goo vid Jos παρεγν.
IG*? B* + aurnv Eus? Jos 16 προαγωγην Z 17 mpocdenra: Eus txt
Arcodd Jos 18 εκομιζον Ar codd -σεν Eus! (-fev cett) -σαν Jos | Avdpeas]
ανδρες B| και] pr Avdpeas B | ἀρισταιος Jos Eus? (-eas ἢ) 20 παρεδωκαν
B 21 γὙραμμασι] πραγμασι Eus 24 και] pr και συ BT (σοι ἃ και σοι
IZ) txt codd cett Eus | ανεπίιληπτα A | πολλοις HA πολυ K πολλοὺς τροπους
Eus

HKAGIBT
Z Jos Eus

4 Jos Eus

§C

HKAGIBC
TZ Jos Eus

528 APISTEAS

3 ᾽ὔ > ’, ε Ν -“ , Ν “ > ~ Ἁ
εὐθέως οὖν προσηγάγομεν ὑπὲρ σοῦ θυσίας καὶ τῆς ἀδελφῆς καὶ
= ΄, \ A ΄ \ ¥ a \ A “
τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶν φίλων: καὶ ηὔξατο πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος, ἵνα σοι
Ν ~ , \ / Ν ,
γένηται καθὼς προαιρῇ διαπαντός, καὶ διασώζῃ σοι τὴν βασιλείαν
3 3 ’, Ν / «ες / ε ΄ / Sew! / ͵
ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ δόξης 6 κυριεύων ἁπάντων θεός, καὶ ὅπως γένηταί
σοι συμφερόντως καὶ μετὰ ἀσφαλείας ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου νόμου μεταγραφή.
,ὔ ‘ / > LE ΜΝ Ν ἣ 3 .
παρόντων δὲ πάντων ἐπελέξαμεν ἄνδρας καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς πρεσ-
, 3 > ε 4 ~ 7 [1 Ν 3 , ΝΜ Ν
βυτέρους, ad’ ἑκάστης φυλῆς ἕξ, οὗς καὶ ἀπεστείλαμεν ἔχοντας τὸν
“ > Ἄ “- / “ἢ ε Xv ε
νόμον. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις, βασιλεῦ δίκαιε, προστάξας, ὡς ἂν ἡ
A 4 nw 4 7 / > -“ Ν
μεταγραφὴ γένηται τῶν βιβλίων, ἵνα πάλιν ἀποκατασταθῶσι πρὸς
ἡμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς οἱ ἄνδρες. ἔρρωσο. Εἰσὶ δὲ πρώτης φυλῆς"
Ἰώσηφος ᾿Εζεκίας Ζαχαρίας ᾿Ιωάννης “Elexias “EXtooaios. δευ-
τέρας- ᾿Ιούδας Σίμων Σομόηλος ᾿Αδαῖος Ματταθίας “EoyAeuias.
τρίτης: Νεεμίας ᾿Ιώῴσηφος Θεοδόσιος Βασέας ᾿Ορνίας Δάκις.
τετάρτης: Ιωνάθας ᾿Αβραῖος ᾿Ἐλισσαϊῖος ᾿Ανανίας Χαβρίας...
πέμπτης: Ἴσακος Ἰάκωβος ᾿Ιησοῦς Σαββαταῖος Σίμων Λευίς.
ἕκτης: Ιούδας Ἰώσηφος Σίμων Ζαχαρίας Σομόηλος Σελεμίας.
ἑβδόμης" * SaBBaratos Σεδεκίας ᾿Ιάκωβος “Ioaxos ᾿Ιησίας Νατθαῖος.
ὀγδόης: Θεοδόσιος Ἰάσων Ἰησοῦς Θεόδοτος ᾿Ιωάννης Ιωνάθας.
ἐνάτης: Θεόφιλος “ABpapos “Apoapos ᾿Ιάσων ᾿Ενδεμίας Δανίηλος.
δεκάτης: Ἱερεμίας EXealapos Ζαχαρίας Βανέας ᾿Βλισσαῖος Δαθαῖος.
ἑνδεκάτης - Sapovyros Ἰώσηφος ᾿Ιούδας Ιωνάθης Χαβεῦ Δοσίθεος.
δωδεκάτης᾽ ᾿Ισάηλος ᾿Ιωάννης Θεοδόσιος “Apoapos ᾿Αβιήτης Ἔζε-
“ ε / ε ἊΣ / és Ν Ν Ν \ \
KnAos. οἱ πάντες ἑβδομήκοντα δύο. Καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸς τὴν
“ / 5 Ν ’ 3 ’ὔ 3 “ ε \
τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπιστολὴν τοιαύτης ἐτύγχανεν αντιγραφῆς «ὑπὸ:

τῶν περὶ τὸν ᾿Πλεάξαρον.

4 om εν BT | κυριευοντων aravtwv BT 5 om σοι Eus 6 om de
Eus | επελεξαμεν Jos] εἐπιλεξαμὴην (sic) Eus! εξελεξαμην Eus® επελεξαμεθα
(απελ. BT om Z) Ar codd 7 απεσταλκαμεν Eus Jos’4 (πεπομφαμεν)
10 οἱ ανδρ. acd. K om acd. GI 11 Τωσηπος B | Τεζεκιας B 12 Mar-
θιας KA | Σεχλεμιας Bvid 13 Ιωσηπος B* id | Βασαιας T Βασβιας Z
14 Agpavos B | post Χαβριας nomen excidit 15 Σαβατταιος I 16 Σιμων
Iwongdos HKA 17, 18 om Yedex.—Oeodoc.os I om Σεδεκ.---[ σοὺς At
ins A™S om Icaxyos—NarOaos C 17 Τεισιας GZ | Ματθαιος HKA
18 Τωναθαν B 19 Δανιηλ TZ om C 20 Βαναιας BCTZ | Θαδδαιος Z
22 δωδεκατος C 24 επιβολην AGICT™® (-βουλ. ΤΊ) | vro] ὑπερ codd

5

15

20

σι

Io

15

20

25

®IAOKPATEI, 529

ge x ay ’ Ν Ν A ’ὔ -
Ὡς δὲ ἐπηγγειλαμην καὶ τὰ τῶν κατασκευασμάτων διασαφῆσαι,
Ψ' ’ ‘\ ὃ ,ὔ ,ὔ an ,
ποιήσω. πολυτεχνίᾳ yap διαφέροντα συνετελέσθη, τοῦ βασιλέως
/ \ > [4 A
πολλὴν ἐπίδοσιν ποιουμένου καὶ παρ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐπιθεωροῦντος τοὺς
΄ ὃ Ν ὃ A ὑδὲ γὃ ΄ Doe Te.) ,
τεχνίτας. ιὸ παριδεῖν οὐδὲν ἠδύναντο οὐδὲ εἰκῇ συντελέσαι.
“a , >." Ν “ £ > -
πρῶτον δέ σοι τὰ περὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἐξηγήσομαι. Προεθυ-
A > \ eth , a a ,
petro μὲν οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑπέροπλόν τι ποιῆσαι τοῖς μέτροις TO
, / δὲ θέ a“ ou Ν Ν ΄ /
κατασκεύασμα. προσέταξε δὲ πυθέσθαι τῶν ava τὸν τόπον, πηλίκη
a \ ἢ
τίς ἐστιν ἢ προοῦσα καὶ κειμένη κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις.
ε ,ὔ ’
ὡς δὲ ἀπεφήναντο τὰ μέτρα, προσεπηρώτησεν, εἰ κατασκευάσει
, N N > \ na e ΄ὔ \ aA " " x
μείζονα. τινὲς μὲν οὖν καὶ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔλεγον μηδὲν
3 , \ a A
ἐπικωλύειν. ὁ δὲ εἶπε βούλεσθαι καὶ πενταπλῆν τοῖς μεγέθεσι
A ’ὔ , » ,, Ἀ
ποιῆσαι, διστάζειν δὲ μή ποτε ἄχρηστος γένηται πρὸς τὰς λειτουρ-
“ “ / “A ’ὔ
γίας. οὐ γὰρ αἱρεῖσθαι τὸ κεῖσθαι μόνον ἐν τῷ τόπῳ -«τὰ-:- παρ᾽
> ~ δ Ν A 7, ov oN AN , ,
αὐτοῦ, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον χάριν ἕξειν, ἐὰν τὰς καθηκούσας λειτουργίας
a 3 -“ eo n a
ἐπὶ TOV ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευασμένων οἷς καθῆκε ποιῶνται δεόντως.
> 7 a
οὐ yap ἕνεκεν σπάνεως χρυσοῦ τὰ προσυντετελεσμένα βραχύμετρα
΄ > x , , ᾿ ΄ > ¢
καθέστηκεν, ἀλλὰ φαίνεται πρός τινα λόγον, εἶπεν, οὕτως συνεστη-
,ὕ a , ” X ew. \ a 4 32. x 3 ΄,
κέναι τοῖς μέτροις. ἔτι γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς οὔσης οὐθὲν ἂν ἐσπάνιζε:
ὃ ΄ 3 / JCA. 6 / Ν A 3 a Ν
ιόπερ ov παραβατέον οὐδὲ ὑπερθετέον τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντα. τῇ μὲν
7 ~ a“ 7 nA
οὖν ποικιλίᾳ τῶν τεχνών ἐκέλευσεν OTL μάλιστα χρήσασθαι, σεμνῶς
-“ A
ἅπαντα διανοούμενος Kal φύσιν ἔχων ἀγαθὴν εἰς TO συνιδεῖν Tpay-
, 3 “ Ν Ἃ Ὁ ΤΥ Ν Ν ΓΝ ἢ.
μάτων ἔμφασιν. ὅσα δὲ av ἢ ἄγραφα, πρὸς καλλονὴν ἐκέλευσε
A 7 = A A
ποιεῖν: ὅσα δὲ διὰ γραπτῶν, μέτρα αὐτοῖς κατακολουθῆσαι.
΄ a “ ε
‘AYO γὰρ πήχεων τὸ MAKOC, τὸ δὲ ὕψος πήχεος kal HMicoyc
P
συνετέλουν, XPYCiOY AOKiMOY στερεὰν πάντοθεν τὴν ποίησιν ἐργα-

24 Ex 25” ff

1 των] pr κατα GIC | επισκευασματων B σκευασμ. C 2 om ποιήσω
BT 3 επιθεωρουντας CTZ 4 ovdev] ovde B 6 om ovv C 7 om
de Z 11 κωλυειν BCTZ Jos | βουλεσθαι---δὲ 12 om BCTZ 12 μὴ
mote] unre GI 18 τα ins Schmidt 14 καταθηκουσας GI 16 evexa
B | προσσυν. A* (προσυν. Ar) rporer. B (συν suprascr pr man) 18 ετι---
Tns| oda yap ws dayirous τῆς vAns avros B. Fort legendum εἰ te yap
εδεὶ ta THs | Ta] ras CT*Z | αν om H supra lin Z 22 εγγραφα Καὶ

24 πηχεων] pr Kat ἡμισοὺς Jos qui et post μηκος add (ex LXX vid) evos δὲ τὸ
ευρος

aS: 34

§ Jos

HKAGIQB
CTZ Jos

Η

HKAGIQB
CTZ Jos

530 APISTEAS

΄ / Ν 3 ΄ t A“ aA Ν Ν
σάμενοι, λέγω δὲ οὐ περί τι περιεπτυγμένου τοῦ χρυσοῦ, τὸν δὲ
Ν \ / /
ἐλασμὸν αὐτὸν ἐπιδεδέσθαι. CTEPANHN δὲ ἐποίησαν TIAAAICTIAIAN
\ Ν , 4 Ν 3 Ν 4
κυκλόθεν: τὰ δὲ KYMATIA CTPETITA, τὴν ἀναγλυφὴν ἔχοντα σχοινι-
a a , a ” aA A A
dav ἔκτυπον, TH τορείᾳ θαυμαστῶς ἔχουσαν ἐκ τῶν τριῶν μερῶν.
- , \ » ὦ , ε A
ἦν yap τριγωνία- καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον μέρος ἡ διατύπωσις τῆς ἐνεργείας
Ν Δ. Ἃ ὃ (0 Ἂν A θ᾽ aA “ἃ “ , Ν
τὴν αὐτὴν διάθεσιν εἶχεν, ὥστε καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν μέρος στρέφοιτο, τὴν
΄ μι Ν δι δ ἢ ! δὲ \ 1 - , \ Ν
πρόσοψιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτήν" Τκειμένου δὲ κατὰΐ τῆς στεφάνης τὸ μὲν
3 δ» ταῖν Ν ΄ 4 5 , δ \ ὃ , μὲ a ε /
εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν τράπεζαν “ ἀπόκλιμα τὴν διατύπωσιν ἔχειν τῆς ὡραιό-
ἈΝ ἈΝ / Ν Ν ἴω > /
τητος, TO δὲ ἐκτὸς κλίμα πρὸς τὴν TOD προσάγοντος εἶναι θεωρίαν.
Ν Ν ε Ν 3 »" > “ ΄΄ ΄, ΄ ,
διὸ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ὀξεῖαν εἶναι τῶν δύο κλιμάτων συνέβαινε, μετέωρον
΄ τ ΄ zx AN
ἐπικειμένην, WS προειρήκαμεν, τριγώνου κατεσκευασμένου, καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν
’ ’ a > 3 -“ ’ ε a
μέρος στρέφοιτο. λίθων τε πολυτελῶν ἐν αὐτῷ διαθέσεις ὑπῆρχον
A a “ > /
ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν σχοινιδῶν: ἕτερος Tapa ἕτερον πλοκὴν εἶχον ἀμί-
lod ’ / > > /, /
μητον τῇ ποιήσει. πάντες δ᾽ ἦσαν διὰ τρημάτων κατειλημμένοι
la / \ Ἂς a lad
χρυσαῖς περόναις πρὸς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γωνιῶν αἱ
a , Ν \ , 3 ’ὔ Ν Ν
κατακλεῖδες συνέσφιγγον πρὸς τὴν συνοχήν. ἐκ πλαγίων δὲ κατὰ
\ ,ὔ ΄, Ν ΝΗ ‘ 4 Tine > ,
τὴν στεφάνην κυκλόθεν TA πρὸς τὴν ἄνω πρόσοψιν ὠοθεσία κατε-
, ’ὔ ” A ΄ >
σκεύαστο διάλιθος, Τέἐκτύπωσιν ἔχουσα προσοχῆς συνεχέσιν ἄνα-

γλυφαῖς ῥαβδωταῖς, πυκνὴν ἐχούσαις τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα θέσιν περὶ

Lal

-΄ \ , ΄- Ν Ν Ν ΕἸ ,ὔ ~ / n
ὅλην τὴν τράπεζαν. ὑπὸ δὲ τὴν ἐκτύπωσιν τῶν λίθων τῆς 2

lal 4 «ε -

ὠοθεσίας, στέφανον ἐποίησαν οἱ τεχνῖται πάγκαρπον, ἐν ὑπεροχῇ
f 4 ΄ Ν , 3 ἊΝ / \ ,

προδήλως ἔχοντα βοτρύων καὶ σταχύων, ἔτι δὲ φοινίκων καὶ μήλων

3 , Ἀν 6 “ Ν a , Ν Ν 4 3 /

ἐλαίας Te Kal ῥοῶν Kai τῶν παραπλησίων. τοὺς δὲ λίθους ἐργασά-

Ν a / a , Ν
μενοι πρὸς THV TWV προειρημενων καρπὼν διατύπωσιν, εχοντας

1 χρυσου] ad hoc AS in mg add ov κατα τι μερος τῆς τραπεζὴς συνε-

σταλμενοῦυ του χρυσου και οὐχ ορωμενου adda δια παντων επιλαμποντος᾽ καὶ

κατα τας σωματικας διαστασεις τοι κατα βαθος Kat κατα μῆκος και κατα
TAATOS ομοιως EXOVTOS’ στερεὰ yap nV δι ολου του σχήματος. TO δὲ ELdos ὡς
φησιν Θεοδωριτος (-ρητ. 1.) τρίγωνος κατα λογον avaywyns υψηλοτερας Kat
θειοτερας. Hanc notam L textui inseruit 3, 4 σχοινιδων GIBT**] σχοι-
νιδον HKAC -ηδον T!?Z (cxowoedn Jos) 4 εκτυπον ΤΊ exrorov cett
7 κειμενὴης de και B txt cett. Fort κειμένῳ legendum: 11 κειμενην BCTZ
12 ev αὐτω] ev eavtw GIQCZ eavtrw T 16 κατακλειδαι CQ | cvverd.]+
de GICQ 17 ἀαποθεσια Q 18 εκτυπωσιν Β] εκτυπων (ex τυπων GI)
cett | Fort legendum προοχὴς (conj Schmidt) | συνοχεσιν GIBC 19 εχου-
σας OCZ 22 del]t+xac A

Io

15

20

25

SIAOKPATEI. 531

ἑκάστου γέ ἣν χρόαν, ἀνέδησαν τῷ χρυσίῳ κύκλῳ περὶ ὅλην
κάστου γένους τὴν χρόαν, ἀνέδησαν τῷ χρυσίς » περὶ ὅλη
Ν nw ‘ 7 \ Lal
τὴν τῆς τραπέζης κατασκευὴν κατὰ κρόταφον. μετὰ δὲ THY τοῦ
/ , ε / Ν \ a 3 ’ ‘
στεφάνου διάθεσιν, ὁμοίως κατὰ THY τῆς ὠοθεσίας διασκευὴν κατε-
“a ΄ \
σκεύαστο, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς ῥαβδώσεως Kai διαγλυφῆς, -«διὰ TO>
\ δ Ν ‘ nw aA
κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα τὰ μέρη τὴν τράπεζαν πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν πεποιῆσθαι,
ἢ; ἢ “ \ A , \ \
καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν μέρος αἴρωνται, στε Kal THY TOV κυμάτων θέσιν καὶ τὴν
“- , Ss \ Ν “ὴ lal , »” Ν > vA
τῆς στεφάνης εἶναι κατὰ TO τῶν ποδῶν μέρος. ἔλασμα yap ἐποίη-
δ δ᾿ “ / ~ / ἈΝ / ΄
σαν καθ᾽ ὅλου τοῦ πλάτους τῆς τραπέζης στερεὸν δακτύλων τεσσάρων,
7 ~ / \ “
ὥστε τοὺς πόδας ἐνίεσθαι εἰς τοῦτο, περόνας «σὺν: κατακλεῖσιν
» > , Ν \ , Ψ 5. A A "
ἔχοντας ἐσφίγχθαι κατὰ τὴν στεφάνην, ἵνα, καθ΄ ὃ av αἴρωνται
“»" 5 A , a
μέρος, ἡ χρῆσις ἢ: τοῦτο δὲ κατὰ ἐπιφάνειαν θεωρεῖται ἀμῴοτε-
A “ ” 3 aA “-“
ροδεξίου τῆς κατασκευῆς οὔσης. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς τραπέζης
΄ὔ a / \ ΄
μαΐανδρον ἔκτυπον ἐποίησαν, ἐν ὑπεροχῇ λίθους ἔχοντα κατὰ μέσον
a a“ ‘ / /
πολυτελεῖς, τῶν trvAcadwyt ἀνθράκων τε καὶ σμαράγδων, ἔτι δὲ
” \ a »” “ a ΄, 3 ε ΄
ὄνυχος, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων γενῶν τῶν διαφερόντων ἐν ὡραιότητι.
Ν \ \ aA / ὃ ὃ (0 Bia rf \ ΄,
μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ μαιάνδρου διάθεσιν ἐπέκειτο σχιστὴ πλοκή,
“ ἈΝ 4
θαυμασίως ἔχουσα, ῥομβωτὴν ἀποτελοῦσα τὴν ἀνὰ μέσον θεωρίαν "
Sy pe ΄ὔ ΄, Ν Ν / »” > ,
ἐφ᾽ 4 κρυστάλλου λίθος Kai τὸ λεγόμενον ἤλεκτρον ἐντετύπωτο,
5. κε ΄, 3 a fa θ a Ν δὲ ΄ 3 ΄,
ἀμίμητον θεωρίαν ἀποτελοῦν τοῖς θεωροῦσι. τοὺς δὲ πόδας ἐποίησαν
\ ΄ 4 4 38 / EN Ν /
τὰς κεφαλίδας ἔχοντας κρινωτάς, ἀνάκλασιν κρίνων ὑπὸ τὴν τράπεζαν
΄, Ν ἈΝ A > \ ΄ 3 \ ” \ ,
λαμβανόντων, τὰ δὲ τῆς ἐντὸς προσόψεως ὀρθὴν ἔχοντα τὴν πετά-
> paling a ἈΝ ”
wow. ἡ δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐδάφους ἔρεισις τοῦ ποδὸς ἄνθρακος λίθου πάν-
θ λ ᾽ὔ τὸ 3 Le Ν Ἀ / 5 \
τοθεν παλιστιαία, κρηπῖδος ἔχουσα τάξιν κατὰ THY πρόσοψιν, ὀκτὼ
Ν , Ν / 35 Sages eX ae Ν “ +
δὲ δακτύλων τὸ πλάτος ἔχουσα: ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἐπίκειται τὸ πᾶν ἔλασμα
“ / , Ν > / Ν 5 Ψ /
τοῦ ποδός. κατεσκεύασε δὲ ἐκφύοντα κισσὸν ἀκάνθῳ πλεκόμενον

ἐκ τοῦ λίθου, σὺν ἀμπέλῳ περιειλούμενον κυκλόθεν τῷ ποδὶ σὺν

1, 2 odnv τὴν] ολην T τὴν ολὴην C 3 διασκευηνῚ κατασκευην KBCTZ
+7 codd omn 4 δια το] και codd Verborum ordine mutato wore kat
την--ποδων μερος και κατ ἀμφοτερα---αἱιρωνται legit Schmidt 5 προς τὴν
xp. τὴν Tp. I 6 wote—Oeow om BT | θεσιν]- πεποιησθαι καθ ο αν μερος
CZ . 8 στερεων T 9 περονας κατα κλεισιν Codd 11 θεωρηται GI
14 πυλιαδων codd] Jos hab λιθους.. αξιολογους ὡσπερ αστερας ποικιλὴς Leas
ex quibus πολυειδων con) Lumbroso 16 σχιστη] κτιστὴ B 18 om
ἤλεκτρον C | evrerurwro Jos B'] everur. KAGIB* evererur. ZQ ererurwro C
21 ορθην] apxovyTws T 23 παλαισταιου BCTZ 24 ον] wy C | παν
ελασμα] παρελασμα QO 25 ακανθηὴ BT 26 περιειλημενον G

34—2

KAGIQBC
TZ Jos

ἰῷ

KAGIQBC
‘TZ Jos

532 APISTEAS
nn τὸς δὲ “ρος ee συ.
- , \ nw > ’ὔ ~ ~~ c >
τοῖς βότρυσιν, ot λιθουργεῖς ἦσαν μέχρι τῆς κεφαλῆς. ἢ ὃ
= ~ aA an
αὐτὴ διάθεσις ἦν τῶν τεσσάρων ποδῶν, πάντα ἐνεργῶς πεποιη-
“- Ψ
μένα καὶ προσηγμένα, τῆς ἐμπειρίας καὶ τέχνης τὰς ὑπεροχὰς
> , ει Ν Ἀ 5 ’ σ ΙΝ ε 7 -“
ἀπαραλλάκτως ἔχοντα πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὥστε καὶ ῥιπίζοντος τοῦ
x Ν ᾿ 4 / > \ 7 A “~ ὕ
κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πνεύματος κίνησιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι τὴν τῶν φύλλων
,ὔ Ν Ν Lal 5 4 rd vd ε Ψ
θέσιν, πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας διάθεσιν τετυπωμένων ἁπάντων.
QA Si ~ 4 c ‘ /
ἐποίησαν δὲ τριμερὲς TO στόμα τῆς τραπέζης, οἷον εὶ τρίπτυχον,
,ὔὕ “ Ν A Ἀ ἈΝ ͵7ὔ wn
πελεκίνοις συναρμοζόμενα γομφωτοῖς πρὸς ἑαυτὰ κατὰ τὸ πάχος τῆς
-“ A nn ε -“
κατασκευῆς, ἀθέατον καὶ ἀνεύρετον τὴν τῶν ἁρμῶν κατασκευάσαντες
΄ὔ ε ,ὔ Ἀ > 2 /, > \ ,ὕ a“ i
συμβολήν. ἡμιπηχίου δὲ οὐκ ἐλάσσονος ἣν τὸ πάχος τῆς ὅλης
͵, «“ “ 3 7 Ν Ld / > Ν
τραπέζης, ὥστε πολλῶν εἶναι ταλάντων τὴν ὅλην διασκευήν. ἐπεὶ
Ἀ 3 ,ὔ “ / 90» θ a ε 4, 7
yap οὐ προήρητο Tots μεγέθεσιν οὐδὲν προσθεῖναι ὃ βασιλεύς, ὅσον
5, n , / an 5 ,
ἔδει δαπανηθῆναι κατασκευαζομένων μειζόνων, ταῦτα ἀποδέδωκε
A n~
πλείονα: καὶ κατὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐπετελέσθη
θαυμασίως καὶ ἀξιολόγως ἔχοντα, καὶ ταῖς τέχναις ἀμίμητα, καὶ τῇ
καλλονῇ διαπρεπῆ Τῶν δὲ κρατήρων δύο μὲν ἦσαν «--χρύσεοι:-
ἢ διαπρεπῆ. ρατήρ μὲν ἦσαν «χρ
a® - Ν » 3 Ν “ ,ὔ , nan ,
τῇ ᾿ κατασκευῇ, φολιδωτὴν ἔχοντες ἀπὸ τῆς βάσεως μέχρι τοῦ μέσου
A ἢ, cal , A ‘ n~ / > Ν / ~
τὴν διασκευὴν TH τορείᾳ, καὶ τὴν TOV λίθων ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν φολίδων
> A
σύνδεσιν πολυτέχνως ἔχοντες. εἶτα μαίανδρος ἐπέκειτο πηχυαῖος
9 A > ΕἸ ͵ὕ 5 ~ Ν 4 / > ,
vet, τὴν δ᾽ ἐκτύπωσιν ἐνυπῆρχε διὰ λιθώσεως ποικίλης, ἐμφαίνων
rt ε 7 4, “ /, ’ὔ > Ν Ν ’ ΠΥ ὦ
σὺν ὡραιότητι τὸ τῆς τέχνης φιλόπονον. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτου ῥάβδωσις,
> 4 Φ 4 »Ὺ \ ἈΝ / “ sam A
ἐφ᾽ ἡ διαπλοκὴ ῥόμβων, δικτυωτὴν ἔχουσα τὴν πρόσοψιν ἕως ἐπὶ τὸ
, A > 5 Ν 7 ΕῚ δί Θ ε ’ὔ Le , -“
στόμα. τὸ δ᾽ ἀνὰ μέσον ἀσπιδίσκοι λίθων ἑτέρων παρ᾽ ἑτέροις, τοῖς
Ψ, ἈΝ > id ’ὔ 3 ΝΜ 3 ,
γένεσι παραλλαγὴν ἐχόντων, τετραδακτύλων οὐκ ἔλαττον, ἀνεπλή-
» -“᾽ as nw n~ ¢
ρουν τὸ τῆς καλλονῆς ἐναργές. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς στεφάνης τοῦ στόματος
’,ὔ
κρίνων τύπωσις σὺν ἀνθεμίσι καὶ βοτρύων σχοινίαι διάπλοκοι
“- φ nm A
διετυποῦντο κυκλόθεν. οἱ μὲν οὖν διὰ TOD χρυσοῦ τοιαύτην εἶχον

τὴν κατασκευήν, χωροῦντες ὑπὲρ δύο μετρητάς: οἱ δ᾽ ἀργυροῖ λείαν

1 a] o GI 2 evapyws BZ 4 Tov mv. Kata Tov a. Q 7 στομα]
σχημα Jos 8 συναρμοΐομενον KA 9 aderov codd txt ex Jos (aoparor)
10 ημιπηχναιου B | eXaccov Q | nv KB] ἡ cett 11 eredn Ὁ 12 προ-
epnto GCTZ | οσων CTZ 13 om μειΐζονων C 14 απετελεσθηὴ BCT
15 την τεχνην CQ 16 xpvceo (om codd) ex Jos supplevi 17, 18 azo
της Bac.—Topea και om BYTZ 18 ropea ἃ 19 συνθεσιν GI
25 ? evepyes 26 cxoww codd txt ex Jos conj Schmidt 28 λιαν

QGIZT* fort

10

15

20

25

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 533

Ν “ A
εἶχον τὴν διασκευήν, ἔνοπτρον δὴ γεγονυῖαν πρὸς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θαυμα-
cal Ν /
σίως ἔχουσαν, woTE πᾶν TO προσαχθὲν ἀπαυγάζεσθαι σαφέστερον
A a ~ ξ΄ 3 3 x δ᾽ 3 3 ΄,
μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν τοῖς κατόπτροις. οὐκ ἐφικτὸν δ᾽ ἐστιν ἐξηγήσασθαι
Ν , \ Ν A 3 ,ὔ ΕΣ ε ἵν
τὰ προσυντελεσθέντα πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἔμφασιν. ὡς γὰρ
“- / ΄“
ἐπετελέσθη, τεθέντων τῶν κατασκευασμάτων ἑτέρου Tap ἕτερον---
“-“ “ ω > n~ / “
λέγω δὲ πρῶτον ἀργυροῦ κρατῆρος, εἶτα χρυσοῦ, πάλιν ἀργυροῦ καὶ
A “ ΄ / -“ ΄,
χρυσοῦ-- παντελῶς ἀνεξήγητος ἐγένετο τῆς προσόψεως ἡ διάθεσις,
\ - Ν Ν ’ ΄ 5 / 3 / Ἂς
καὶ τῶν πρὸς τὴν θεωρίαν προσιόντων οὐ δυναμένων ἀφίστασθαι διὰ
/ “ ” / “
τὴν περιαύγειαν καὶ τὸ τῆς ὄψεως τερπνόν. ποικίλη γὰρ ἦν ἡ τῆς
, \ a
ἐπιφανείας ἐνέργεια. προσορώντων yap πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν τοῦ χρυσίου
,ὔ Ss “ A ΕῚ
κατασκευήν, ψυχαγωγία τις ἦν μετὰ θαυμασμοῦ, συνεχῶς ἐφ᾽ ἕκαστον
9 ΄ A ΄, ῃ x , τ Ν \
ἐπιβαλλούσης τῆς διανοίας τεχνίτευμα. Kal πάλιν ὅτε πρὸς THY
~ ~ x”
τῶν ἀργυρῶν προσβλέψαι τις θέσιν ἤθελεν, ἀπέλαμπε TA πάντα
4, ε y+ a Ἂ ΄ » ve / “a
κυκλόθεν, ws av τις ἕστηκε, Kal διάχυσιν ἐποίει μείζονα τοῖς θεω-
͵7ὔ ΄ A ’ -“
μένοις: ὥστε παντελῶς ἀνεξήγητον εἶναι τῶν ἐνηργημένων τὴν
πολυτεχνίαν. Τὰς δὲ χρυσᾶς φιάλας διετόρευσαν στεφάνοις
- / - ’ \ Ν ἧς ΄ ἴω Ν id »”
ἀμπέλου κατὰ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τὰ χείλη κισσοῦ τε Kal μυρσίνης, ἔτι
> a
δ᾽ ἐλαίας ἀνέπλεξαν στέφανον ἔκτυπον, πολυτελεῖς ἐνέντες λίθους"
¢
καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς δὲ τορείας διηλλαγμένως ἐπετέλεσαν, ἅπαντα φιλοτι-
a) / 3 ε \ id “- ΄, a θ ΄ Ν
μηθέντες εἰς ὑπεροχὴν δόξης τοῦ βασιλέως ποιῆσαι. καθόλου γὰρ
“9... Ὁ “ A lal
ovr ἐν τοῖς βασιλικοῖς ὑπῆρχε ῥισκοφυλακίοις τοιαύτη κατασκευὴ
a ΄ \ ΄ ay, >) Sy 4 ΄ ΟἿ 9
τῇ πολυτελείᾳ καὶ τεχνουργίᾳ, ovT ἐν τινι ἀλλῳ. προνοιαν γὰρ ov
μικρὰν ἐποιεῖτο ὃ βασιλεύς, φιλοδοξῶν εἰς τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντα.
/ -“ /
πολλάκις yap τὸν δημόσιον χρηματισμὸν παρήει, τοῖς δὲ τεχνίταις
παρήδρευεν ἐπιμελῶς, ἵνα καθηκόντως τῷ τόπῳ συντελέσωσιν, εἰς
a 39 7 Ν “ » « ‘ , - » ,ὔ Ἢ
ὃν ἀπεστέλλετο τὰ τῶν ἔργων. διὸ πάντα σεμνῶς ἐγεγόνει, καὶ
Ἂ ἴω 5 / / Ν A ‘al
καταξίως τοῦ Te ἀποστέλλοντος βασιλέως καὶ τοῦ προστατοῦντος

5 , n , Ν Ν XQ aA , qn ΕΣ ε
ἀρχιερέως τοῦ τόπου. καὶ γὰρ τὸ τῶν λίθων πλῆθος ἄφθονον, καὶ

1 δη] δε TZ om BC 2 mpocaxev GI προσταχθεν Z | απεργαζεσθαι Ο
4 προσσυντ. B 4,5 προς την---τεθεντων om Tt (ins™s) Z 6 προτερον
Z 8 om ov Q 13 προσβλεψεται T επιβλεψεται B 13, 14 θεσιν---
ws av τις om BTZ 14 εποιει] ewe Q 18 δι eXavas Q | ενιεντες BTZ
19 ropecas KAS] operas cett | διηλλαγμενας B 22 και rexv.] τῆς
Texvoupy.as B 23 eros KAGI 24 παριει TZQ 25 επιτελε-
σωσιν B*

q Jos

KAGIQBT

Z Jos

KAGIQB
Tz

534 APISTEAS

, “ ΄ 3 »” / \ “ ,ὔ
μεγάλοι τοις μεγέθεσιν, οὐκ ἔλαττον πεντακισχιλίων καὶ ταῖς τέχναις
4, ΄ 7 Δ “a “A 4
KPQaTLOTEVOVTAa παντα, ωστε πενταπλασίως του χρυσου τιμιωτεραν

> \ a ΄, ΄ Ν ‘ a “ ὍΣ
ειναι Τὴν των λίθων δόσιν και τὴν των τέχνων ενεργείαν.

ε / > \ , \ Ε] Ν 2 , >
Ὑπολαμβάνων οὖν καὶ τούτων THY ἀναγραφὴν ἀναγκαίαν εἶναι,
, > A ΄, \ \ Af. ,
δεδήλωκά σοι. τὰ δ᾽ ἑξῆς περιέχει τὴν πρὸς τὸν ᾿Βλεάζαρον dddv
eon / \ δὲ θέ “ 5X: 4 A ὃ ΄
ἡμῖν γενομένην: τὴν δὲ θέσιν τῆς ὅλης χώρας πρῶτον δηλώσω.
\ ἈΝ ‘s »“ /

‘Os yap παρεγενήθημεν ἐπὶ τοὺς τόπους, ἐθεωροῦμεν THY πόλιν μέσην
΄, ἐν 5. Ὁ 3 ὃ ΄ 3. AE ε \ 5 Ν ore
κειμένην τῆς ὅλης Ἰουδαίων ἐπ ὁρους ὑψηλην ἔχοντος THY ἀνατασιν.
ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς κορυφῆς κατεσκεύαστο τὸ ἱερὸν ἐκπρεπῶς ἔχον" καὶ Ob

΄, a cr τὰ ε / Ν ΄ a ΄, \ Ν
περίβολοι τρεῖς, ὑπὲρ ἑβδομήκοντα δὲ πήχεις τῷ μεγέθει, καὶ τὸ
/ “-“ ~ > “
πλάτος ἀκόλουθον καὶ τὸ μῆκος τῆς κατὰ τὸν οἶκον διασκευῆς
ε - / νι ’ὔὕ Ν ’, ε ᾽7ὕ
ὑπῆρχε, μεγαλομοιρίᾳ καὶ χορηγίᾳ κατὰ πᾶντα ὑπερβαλλούσῃ
΄ὔ ε , Ν a 4 Ν Ν a Ν ἂν
᾿διῳκοδομημένων ἁπάντων. καὶ τοῦ θυρώματος δὲ καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ
, Ν Ν Ν \ a ~ ε ΄ 3 ’ὔ
συνδέσμων κατὰ τὰς φλιὰς καὶ τῆς τῶν ὑπερθύρων ἀσφαλείας
μὴ > ε lal ’ a 3 QA , A
ἔκδηλος ἦν ἡ τῶν χρημάτων γεγονυῖα αφειδὴς δαπάνη. τοῦ τε
’ an A “-“
καταπετάσματος ἡ διατύπωσις θυρῶσι κατὰ πᾶν ὁμοιοτάτη ὑπῆρχε"
Ἀ ΄ Ἂς Ν ω ’ὕ ε Ν 5 7 ,
καὶ μάλιστα διὰ THY TOU πνεύματος ὑποδρομὴν ἀδιάλειπτον κίνησιν
4 nan “ Ν 3 ‘4 a e
λαμβανούσης τῆς διυφῆς, διὰ τὸ ar ἐδάφους γινομένης τῆς ὑποδρο-
“ Ν , A + a
μῆς <Katateivev> τὴν κόλπωσιν μέχρι τῆς ἄνω διατάσεως, ἡδεῖάν
/ \ a Ma
τινα καὶ δυσαπάλλακτον THY θεωρίαν ἔχοντος TOD πράγματος. .
lal / Ἁ Ν
Ἥ τε τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου κατασκευὴ σύμμετρον [ἔχουσα] πρὸς τὸν
Ν \ lal x ‘
τόπον καὶ τὰ θύματα διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξαναλούμενα τὴν διοικοδομὴν
“ > ΄ - / \
εἶχε, τῆς δ᾽ ἀναβάσεως τῆς πρὸς αὐτό, πρὸς τὴν εὐκοσμίαν ἔχοντος

A ’ὔ / Ν / a lal “ /
τοῦ τόπου καθηκόντως, TO κλίμα τῶν λειτουργῶν, τῶν ἱερέων κεκα-

1 μεγαλοις GI | ελαττον] των ΚΑ 4 υπολαμβ.---σοι 5 om Q
5 nu odov B 6 δηλωσον (ΙΖ -σαι Καὶ 7 emt του τοπου BI! επι του
και τοπους GIQ et sic cett sed cum lacuna post rov et s pro καὶ posito,
emt Tov...s (Ἔτους LD) τοπους. Txt ex papyris confirmatur 8 Tovdacwr
KAGI] Iovédaas cett [ψιλην K | avacracw GIQ 9 evrperws BT
12 υπερβαλλ. B] ὑπερβαλουσὴ AT περιβαλουση (-βαλλ. Q) cett 18 Kat 1°]
κακ conj Schmidt 16 θυρωσει KABT 17 αδιαληπτον KGIQZ
18 απ] er Β΄ yevou. BTZ 19 κατα codd xararewew conj Schmidt
20 exew ex exovros T* vid 21 om κατασκευὴ T* (ins ΤῊ) Z | exovea hab
codd omn omittendum vid -cavy Schmidt 22 οἰκοδομὴν QO 24 λει-
τουργιων BT

ro

15

20

25

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂. 535

λυμμένων μέχρι τῶν σφυρῶν BYCCINOIC XIT@CIN. *“O δὲ οἶκος βλέ:
Ν μέ Ν eer Je oe 3 a Ν ε ΄ Ν Ν a μ᾿
πει πρὸς ἕω, τὰ δ᾽ ὀπίσθια αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἑσπέραν: τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔδαφος
: 7
λιθόστρωτον καθέστηκε Kai κλίματα πρὸς τοὺς καθήκοντας τόπους
ΕΣ A a ε A Ἵ ἃ / \ “- a
EXEL τῆς τῶν ὑδάτων ἐπιφορᾶς ἕνεκεν, ἣ γίνεται διὰ THY σμῆξιν τῶν
3 \ A “ Ν A
ἀπὸ τῶν θυσιῶν αἱμάτων. πολλαὶ yap μυριάδες κτηνῶν προσά-
Ν Ν a ε a ad 3 ὃ δὲ - ee ΄ 3
γονται κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἑορτῶν ἡμέρας. ὕδατος δὲ ἀνέκλειπτός ἐστι
ε \ A a
σύστασις, ὡς ἂν καὶ πηγῆς ἔσωθεν πολυρρύτου φυσικῶς ἐπιρρεούσης,
Ν Ν , Ν 30 ’ὔ e ’ὔ 4 ’ὔ 6 Ν lal
ἔτι δὲ θαυμασίων καὶ ἀδιηγήτων ὑποδοχείων ὑπαρχόντων ὑπὸ γῆν,
\ > ΄ / , ΄ a ‘ Aye Ν
καθὼς ἀπέφαινον, πέντε σταδίων κυκλόθεν τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν κατα-
XA Ν
βολῆς, καὶ ἑκάστου τούτων σύριγγας ἀναρίθμους <éyovtos>, καθ᾽
σ / “a “~
ἕκαστον μέρος ἑαυτὰ συναπτόντων TOV ῥευμάτων: καὶ πάντα ταῦτα
μεμολιβώσθαι κατ᾽ ἐδάφους καὶ τοῦ τοίχου: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων κεχύσθαι
πολύ τι πλῆθος κονιάσεως, ἐνεργῶς γεγενημένων ἁπάντων. εἶναι
/ “-“ lal
δὲ πυκνὰ τὰ στόματα πρὸς τὴν βάσιν, ἀοράτως ἔχοντα τοῖς πᾶσι
N A e ε ε A ΄
πλὴν αὐτοῖς οἷς ἐστιν ἡ λειτουργία: ὡς ῥοπῇ καὶ νεύματι πάντα
,ὔἹ Ν ᾿ x “ 4 7
καθαρίζεσθαι τὰ συναγόμενα παμπληθεὶ τῶν θυμάτων αἵματα.
/ a
Πεπεισμένος δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς THY τῶν ὑποδοχείων κατασκευὴν δηλώσω
\ ΄ ΄ Lal
καθὼς ἐπιστώθην. προήγαγον yap πλέον σταδίων τεσσάρων ἐκ τῆς
΄ ἴω
πόλεως, καὶ πρός τινα τόπον ἐκέλευσαν κατακύψαντα συνακοῦσαι
an ΄, / Lal > / A“ ες , 7 /
τοῦ γινομένου ψόφου τῆς ἀπαντήσεως τῶν ὑδάτων: ὥστε συμφανές
- /
μοι γεγονέναι TO μέγεθος τῶν ἀγγείων, καθὼς δεδήλωται.
ΠΩ δὲ ε ’ὕ c Xr , ἐν aA > / Bxr / ΕῚ A ie. 4
ὧν δὲ ἱερέων ἡ λειτουργία κατὰ πᾶν ἀνυπέρβλητός ἐστι TH ῥώμῃ
A aA , tal ΄ Ν
καὶ τῇ τῆς εὐκοσμίας καὶ σιγῆς διαθέσει. πάντες γὰρ αὐτοκελεύ-
A a / /
atws διαπονοῦσι πολλῆς γινομένης κακοπαθείας, Kai ἑκάστῳ TO
> “
διατεταγμένον μέλει. καὶ ἀδιαλείπτως ὑπηρετοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν τὴν

-“ »
ξυλείαν, οἱ δὲ ἔλαιον, οἱ δὲ σεμίδαλιν, οἵ δὲ τὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, ἕτεροι

1 Ex 36% (28%)

1 αποβλεπει Eus 2 nw Eus 4 emipopas] emippons Eus 6 αν-
ἐπίληπτος B txt Eus (-du.°) KTQ ανεκληπτος cett 9 επεῴφαινον Eus
10 exacrov] ex Eus | exovros ins Schmidt 11 eavras Ar codd Eus’® (-racs
Eus#) txt Schmidt | ravra παντὰ Eus 12 μεμολιβουσθαι Ar codd txt
Eusi° B! | τοὺς τοιχους Eus® (των -ων Eus') | πολυ τι πληθ. κεχ. Καὶ 13 om
τι Eus | κονιας ews Ar codd Eus°® ἐνεργων Z 15 os}]+ovx'Q | ριπὴ
Toor | ρευματι B 17 πεπεισμενοις (-νως A) et αὐτοῖς codd corr Schmidt

19 εκελευσαν B] εκελευσε (-cev GI) cett 285 μελλει GIBTZ 26 erepos G

§ Eus

4“ Eus

KAGIOB
TZ Eus

KAGIQB
ΗΖ

536 APISTEAS

τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ὁλοκαυτοῦντες, ἰσχύι διαφερόντως συγχρώμενοι:
4 \ 3 / “~ 4 Ν ΄ lal ”
διαλαβόντες yap ἀμφοτέραις τῶν μόσχων τὰ σκέλη, πλεῖον οντα
’ >
ταλάντων δύο σχεδὸν ἑκάστου, ἀναρρίπτουσιν ἑκατέραις θαυμασίως
7 c Ν Ν » c ’ A 3 / τ U Ν ‘ Ν
ὕψος ἱκανὸν καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνουσι τῆς ἐπιθέσεως. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ
“ ΄ + Ν > = a / ‘ “ / μ᾿
τῶν προβάτων ἔτι δὲ αἰγῶν τοῖς βαρέσι καὶ πιμελῇ θαυμασίως ἔχει.
a e -“
κατὰ πᾶν γὰρ ἐκλεγομένων οἷς ἐπιμελές ἐστιν ἀμώμητα καὶ τῇ
παχύτητι διαφέροντα, τὸ προειρημένον ἐπιτελεῖται. πρὸς δὲ τὴν
. --
ἀνάπαυσιν τόπος αὐτοῖς ἐστὶν ἀποτεταγμένος, οὗ καθίζουσιν οἱ
διαναπαυόμενοι. τούτου δὲ γινομένου, τῶν διαλελοιπότων ἐγείρονται
πρόθυμοι, οὐδενὸς ἐπιτάσσοντος τὰ τῆς λειτουργίας. ἥ τε πᾶσα
x ’ὔ ε , , 9 or ΕἾ > “-
σιγὴ καθέστηκεν, ὡς τύπον λαμβάνειν, μηθ᾽ ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἐν τῷ
τόπῳ παρεῖναι, πρὸς τοὺς ἑπτακοσίους παρόντων τῶν AELTOUPyov—
Ν a / Ν Ν ’, , a ? Ν /
καὶ τῶν προσαγόντων δὲ τὰ θύματα πολύ τι πλῆθος---αὀλλὰ φόβῳ
Ν ΄' ,ὔ ’ὔ, σ . 35 “- ,
καὶ καταξίως μεγάλης θειότητος ἁπαντ᾽ ἐπιτελεῖται. MeyaAnv
δὲ δὰ λ ἕ Ἐπ᾿ κῳ 4 ε fH , θ Ν "EA 16 > Cal
€ ἔκπληξιν ἡμῖν παρέσχεν, ws ἐθεασάμεθα τὸν ealapov ἐν τῇ
a ἴων “ \ 4
λειτουργίᾳ, Ta τε τοῦ στολισμοῦ καὶ τῆς δόξης, ἢ συνίσταται διὰ
τὴν ἔνδυσιν οὗ φορεῖ χιτῶνος καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν λίθων: χργοοῖ
Ν 4 Ν Ἂς / τος > ἴω / > > /
yap KWAWNEC περὶ τὸν TIOAHPH εἰσὶν αὐτοῦ, μέλους ἦχον ἀνιέντες
3 5. ὦ ΄ Ν ΄, v , ook
ἰδιάζοντα: παρ᾽ ἑκάτερον δὲ τούτων ANOECI πεποικιλμένοι POTCKOI,
a“ /, / μὲ / Ἃς / ᾿
τῇ χρόᾳ θαυμασίως ἔχοντες. κατέζωστο δὲ διαφόρῳ Ζώνῃ δια-
+ , ’ τ 3 \ Ν er /
πρεπεῖ, διυφασμένῃ καλλίστοις χρώμασιν. ἐπὶ δὲ TOY CTHOOYC
a - ,ὔ
φορεῖ τὸ λεγόμενον λόγιον, ἐν ᾧ συνεσφιγμένοι λίθοι AEKAAYO,
ὃ AX / lal , “~ AX / a ~ my ΄
ιαλλάσσοντες τοῖς γένεσι, χρυσῷ κεκολλημένοι, τὰ τῶν φυλαρ-
A / - > ,
χων ONOMATA κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς διάταξιν γενηθεῖσαν, ἀπαυγα-
lal Ν
ζοντες ἕκαστος ἀνεξήγητον τῆς ἰδιότητος τὴν φυσικὴν χρόαν. ἐπὶ
“- A ΄ Ν
δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχει τὴν λεγομένην κίδλδριν᾽ ἐπὶ δὲ ταύτης τὴν
ἀμίμητον MITPAN, τὸ καθηγιασμένον βασίλειον ἐκτΥποῦν ἐπὶ

17 ff Ex 284-27-31 20 1103 21 ff ib15—23
26 ff ib*=*

1 χρωμενοι A 2 πλειων BT 3 rad. δυο] ταλαντου QB 4 vos]
pr es BT επιθεσ.] επιθυμιας Z (-εσεως sup ras in T) 5 προβ.] mpayua-

των Zt (apoB. Z™2) 6 ots τι πιμελες ἐστιν B 8 om auras BT
11 wod vrodauBavew conj Schmidt | ev] ἐπὶ A 12 ras επτακοσιας Z
16 »] ns BTZ | συνιστατο KA 19 rovrov Καὶ 20 θαυμασιαν Q
21 διυφασμενοι K 27 exturov GIQ (-πων Z)

uw

το

20

ae ite ory ..

Io

15

20

25

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 537

7 δὲ ’ὔ, ε ,ὔ + “ “ \ , ~
TTETAAW χργοῷ γράμμασιν ἁγίοις ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ, κατὰ μέσον τῶν
3 , ‘ / ε Ν » Ἂ 5 “
ὀφρύων, δόξῃ πεπληρωμένον" ὁ κριθεὶς ἄξιος τούτων ἐν ταῖς λει-

/ ε Ν / 4 5 a / Ν ΄
τουργίαις. ἡ δὲ συμφάνεια τούτων ἐμποιεῖ φόβον καὶ ταραχήν,
“;: 4 3 4 3 ΄ > Ν ca) ΄ Ν
ὥστε νομίζειν εἰς ἕτερον ἐληλυθέναι ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου: καὶ διαβε-

lal / »” / A “~
βαιοῦμαι, πάντα avOpwrov προσελθόντα τῇ θεωρίᾳ τῶν προειρη-
΄ 3 a i ¢ \ θ Ν ἰδ , ΄,
μένων εἰς ἔκπληξιν ἥξειν καὶ θαυμασμὸν ἀδιήγητον, μετατραπέντα
“ ¢ \
τῇ διανοίᾳ διὰ τὴν περὶ ἕκαστον ἁγίαν κατασκευήν. Πρὸς
ε ΄ 57 a /
γὰρ τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν ἁπάντων ἐπὶ THY παρακειμένην ἄκραν τῆς πόλεως
3 B , 6 οὔ ee. - Ν 3 ε Xr , fsa) ,
ἀναβάντες ἐθεωροῦμεν: 4 κεῖται μὲν ἐν ὑψηλοτάτῳ τόπῳ, πύργοις
-“ , 3
ἐξησφαλισμένη πλείοσι, μέχρι κορυφῆς εὐμήκεσι λίθοις ἀνῳκοδομη-
, A ε Σ Ν ~ Ν
μένων αὐτῶν, ὡς μεταλαμβάνομεν, πρὸς φυλακὴν τῶν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν
΄ “ ΧΝ ree, ΄, Ἃ \ Ἃ , 3
τόπων: ἵνα, ἐὰν ἐπίθεσίς τις ἢ νεωτερισμὸς ἢ πολεμίων ἔφοδος
/ \ , ce Ν > \ ΄ ΄ Ν
γένηται, μηθεὶς δύνηται ὁδὸν εἰς τοὺς περιβόλους ποιήσασθαι τοὺς

Ν \ > 3 / eae AO oN a , a
περὶ τὸν οἶκον: ἐπικειμένων καὶ ὀξυβελῶν ἐπὶ τῶν πύργων τῆς
κω , a ΄ 4 -
ἄκρας καὶ ὀργάνων ποικίλων, Kal τοῦ τόπου κατὰ κορυφὴν ὄντος τῶν

΄ «ες Ν ΄, A
προειρημένων περιβόλων, ὡσανεὶ φυλασσομένων τῶν πύργων ὑπὸ
~ ’ὔ > a“ \ ~ / / 3 ᾽ ἊΣ ¢ /
TOV πιστοτάτων ἀνδρῶν καὶ TH πατρίδι μεγάλας ἀποδείξεις δεδωκό-
> - n~ y+ -“
των᾽ οἵτινες οὐκ εἶχον ἐξουσίαν ἐξιέναι τῆς ἄκρας, εἰ μὴ ταῖς
ε a Ν A“ 3 / 3 Ν 3 7 y 3 / Ν
ἑορταῖς, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ μέρους, οὐδὲ εἰσοδεύειν εἴων οὐδένα. μετὰ
3 / Ν a > > ΙΑ > Ἂς / ἃς la)
ἀκριβείας δὲ πολλῆς εἶχον, εἰ καί τις ἐπιταγὴ γένοιτο διὰ τοῦ

6 / \ 6 ΄ q > δέ re , a ἈΝ θ᾽
προκαθηγουμένου, πρὸς θεωρίαν ἣ εἰσδέξασθαί τινας" οἷον καὶ κα
yee > / / 3 sik e ες ε A , /
ἡμᾶς ἐγεγόνει. μόλις yap ἀνόπλους ὄντας ἡμᾶς δύο παρεδέξαντο

Ν Ν a Ν »“" “- 5» “
πρὸς τὸ κατανοῆσαι τὰ τών θυσιῶν. ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ δι᾿ ὅρκων πεπι-
»“ Ν nw Ν Ν ,ὔ 5» 5 yA
στῶσθαι τὸ τοιοῦτον" τοὺς yap πάντας ὀμωμοκέναι, KAT ἀνάγκην
/ / Ν an ”
<émitehovpevovs> θείως τὸ κατὰ TOV ὁρισμὸν πρᾶγμα, ὄντας πεντα:

/ Ἃ / “ > , , Ν Ν > ΄

κοσίους μὴ παραδέξασθαι πλεῖον ἀνθρώπων πέντε κατὰ τὸ αὐτό:
“ -“" ἈΝ a Ss »”
TOU yap ἱεροῦ THY πᾶσαν εἶναι φυλακὴν τὴν ἄκραν" καὶ TOV κατα-

βαλλόμενον αὐτὴν τὴν προφυλακὴν τῶν εἰρημένων οὕτως ἠσφαλέ

1 ονομα] pr το Q | κατα] το BTZ 2 δοξης BT 3 εμφανεια IZ |
move. B | φοβον] φημὴν Z 4 εισελ. A | διαβεβαιουται B 5 om των

προειρ. Ὁ 6 nxew BT | ανεκδιηγ. BT 11 ws μεταλαμβανωσι προφυ-
λακης B 12 τις ἡ ἢ και vewr. BT (τις ἡ και v. Z) 13 δυνηται Β]
δυναται cett 19 εἰς μερος BT εἰς μερους Zvid 21 προκαθημενου

ΘΠ ΟἾὝΣΕΤΒΤΈΕ cett 25 επιτελουμενου codd (τελουμενοὺυς 2:5) | του B |
πραγματος Β

1Q

KAGIQB
TZ

538 APISTEAS

a \ , ΄ 3 Ν ΄ ΄ » e
σθαι. Τῆς δὲ πόλεως ἐστι τὸ χύμα συμμέτρως ἔχον, οἷον τεσσα-

’, / ΝΜ “- , / > / ΄
ράκοντα σταδίων ὄντος τοῦ περιβόλου, καθόσον εἰκάσαι δυνατόν.
4 Ν Ν -“ , f a Ν , ΄
ἔχει δὲ τὴν τῶν πύργων θέσιν θεατροειδῆ (καὶ φαινομένων διόδων

a ε / a mS / > ΄ Ν Ν Ν 4
τῶν ὑποκειμένων, τῶν δ᾽ ἐπάνωθεν εἰθισμένων) καὶ τὰς διὰ τούτων

, aay \ + κ A , ε ΕἸ Ὁ, ae a
διεξόδους. ἀνάκλασιν yap ἔχει TA τῶν τόπων, ὡς ἂν ἐπ᾽ ρους τῆς 5

, > \ Ν ΄
πόλεως φκοδομημένης. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ διαβάθραι πρὸς τὰς διόδους. οἱ

Ν Ν / Ν δὸ , ε 5 cae 3 «1X “ \ ,
μὲν yap μετέωροι τὴν ὁδείαν, οἱ δ᾽ ὑπ΄ αὐτὰς ποιοῦνται, καὶ μάλιστα

~ Ἀ -“ »Μ σ΄
διεστηκότες τῆς ὁδείας, διὰ τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἁγνείαις ὄντας, ὅπως μηδενὸς
/ φ᾿ 3 ΄ 3 ΄ 3 35 7 Ν Ν ΄
θιγγάνωσιν, ὧν οὐ δέον ἐστίν. Οὐκ ἀλόγως δὲ τὴν πόλιν
4 “~ Lal
$P συμμετρίᾳ καθηκούσῃ κατεσκεύασαν οἱ πρώτοι, σοφῶς δὲ ᾿ἐπινοή- 10
a , “- y+ aA ,
gH σαντες. τῆς yap χώρας πολλῆς οὔσης καὶ καλῆς, Kal τινων “μὲν
-“ -“ “ = ΄“΄ ’ὔ,
πεδινῶν, τῶν κατὰ τὴν Yapapeitiv λεγομένην, καὶ τῶν συναπτόντων
τῇ τῶν ᾿Ιδουμαίων χώρᾳ, τινῶν δὲ ὀρεινῶν, τῶν «συναπτόντων

A “ / “ Ν Ἀ Ν

τῇ τῶν Ἰουδαίων χώρᾳ, δεῖ:- πρὸς τὴν γεωργίαν καὶ τὴν ἐπιμέ-
~ “ “ ν Ν a “ \ ΕἸ
λειαν τῆς γῆς γίνεσθαι συνεχῶς, ἵνα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὗτοι τὴν εὐ- 15
= ΄“ , ,ὕ
καρπίαν ἔχωσιν: οὗ καὶ γινομένου γεωργεῖται μὲν πάντα δαψιλείας
~ A“ ΄ “-“ o
πολλῆς ἐν πάσῃ TH προειρημένῃ χώρᾳ. τῶν δὲ πόλεων ὅσαι

, Μ Ἂς Ἂς 3 / > , ’ὔ
μέγεθος ἔχουσι καὶ τὴν ἀκόλουθον εὐδαιμονίαν, ταύταις συμ-

΄, 3 A 3 a Ν a , ΄ aS Ν Ν
βέβηκεν εὐανδρεῖν, ἀμελεῖσθαι δὲ τῆς χώρας, πάντων ἐπὶ τὸ κατὰ

Ν “ "6 “ tal / > /
ψυχὴν ἱλαροῦσθαι νενευκότων, Kal τῇ κατασκευῇ πάντας ἀνθρώπους 20
ee! Ν ε Ν 3 ΄ πὸ a Ν τ ον νὴ δι
ἐπὶ τὰς ἡδονὰς εὐκαταφόρους εἶναι. τοῦτο δὲ ἐγίνετο περὶ τὴν

΄ὔ “ Ν /

᾿Αλεξανδρειαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν πάσας τῷ μεγέθει καὶ εὐδαιμονίᾳ
~ XA >

Tas πόλεις. οἱ yap ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας εἰς αὐτὴν ἀποξενούμενοι κατα-

/ agit) Ue Ν > 3 , = Ν a > 7 ᾿ “0 ε

μένοντες ἐφ᾽ ἱκανὸν εἰς ἐλάττωσιν ἦγον τὰ τῆς ἐργασίας" ὅθεν ὃ
\ c ~

βασιλεύς, va μὴ καταμένωσι, προσέταξε μὴ πλέον εἴκοσιν ἡμερῶν 25
a “ “ a ? ΄

παρεπιδημεῖν: καὶ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν ὁμοίως δι᾿ ἐγγράπτων

ὃ Ν 26 2s 3 a = ΄ ὃ , 3

ιαστολὰς ἔδωκεν, ἐὰν ἀναγκαῖον ἢ κατακαλέσαι, διακρίνειν ἐν

ες , \ lal Ν 4 ‘ Ἃ, ele
ἡμέραις πέντε. πρὸ πολλοῦ δὲ ποιούμενος καὶ χρηματιστὰς καὶ

HKAGIBP 1 χυμα] σχημα B 2 ovros] evros Z 4 ηθισμενων KGIT* 4Z,
ae Fort latet vitium aliquid: sensus totius loci perobscurus est 5 efodous B
8 διεστηκοτας KGITZ (-κυιας edd) | rns] τας K | μηδενι BZ 11 πεδινων
μεν P 12 Neyouevwy codd omn 13, 14 των---γεωργιαν)] Tw προς TH
γεωργια Β των mp. τὴν γεωργιαν cett verba ex conj addidi 15 om
kat P 16 fort μετα δαψιλ. legendum 19 evavdpew] ev (sequente
lacuna) B 20 και] και Tw vel dia To conj Schmidt 22 ὑπερβαλλουσα

HA*GIT*Z 23 επιξενουμενοι BP

σι

®IAOKPATEI, 539

4 Ἵ δ᾽
τοὺς τούτων ὑπηρέτας ἐπέταξε κατὰ νόμους, ὅπως μὴ πορισμὸν
λαμβάνοντες οἱ γεωργοὶ καὶ προστάται τῆς πόλεως ἐλαττῶσι τὰ
“ / Ν δ᾿ ~ ’ / /
ταμιεῖα, λέγω δὲ τὰ τῆς γεωργίας πρόσφορα. Παρεξέβημεν
Ν a“ Ν Ν a Ces Ν > / ε & Ν
δὲ ταῦτα διὰ τὸ καλῶς ἡμῖν τὸν “EXealapov ὑποδεδειχέναι τὰ
¢ a

προειρημένα. μεγάλη yap ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν γεωργουμένων φιλοπονία.

“ a“ / A lal
καὶ yap ἐλαϊκοῖς πλήθεσι σύνδενδρός ἐστι καὶ σιτικοῖς καρποῖς

9 a ε ͵ 2 ὧν , m” Ν 3 ᾽ὔ \ , mm Ν
αὐτῶν ἡ χώρα καὶ ὀσπρίοις, ἔτι δὲ ἀμπέλῳ καὶ μέλιτι TOAAW. τὰ

"
οι

Ν -“ » > ὃ ᾽ὔ \ ’ὔ 20» 5 a 3 3 “
μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἀκροδρύων καὶ φοινίκων οὐδ᾽ ἀριθμεῖται Tap αὑτοῖς.
4 Ν Lal Ν De ε ᾽ὔ is \ a
κτήνη TE πολλὰ παμμιγῆ, Kat δαψιλὴς ἡ τούτων νομή" διὸ καλῶς
»” “ ΄ ε ΄ ΄, \ \
ἔβλεψαν, ὅτι πολυανθρωπίας οἱ τόποι δέονται, καὶ τὴν κατα-
\ a ΄ \ A A ” Q , \ \
σκευὴν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τῶν κωμῶν ἔθεντο κατὰ λόγον. πολὺ δὲ
- \ A > / . , wn \ ~
πλῆθος καὶ TOV ἀρωμάτων καὶ λίθων πολυτελῶν καὶ χρυσοῦ παρα-
/ \ A > ΄ 3 \ δ 5" / Ν \ Ν
κομίζεται διὰ τῶν ᾿Αράβων εἰς τὸν τόπον. ἐργάσιμος γὰρ καὶ πρὸς
’ 7 A
τὴν ἐμπορίαν ἐστὶ κατεσκευασμένη ἡ χώρα, καὶ πολύτεχνος ἡ πόλις,
> 44 Ν 9 Ν “~ / \ “~ 4 ΕΝ
οὐ σπανίζει δὲ οὐδὲν τῶν διακομιζομένων διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης. ἔχει
A / A
γὰρ καὶ λιμένας εὐκαίρους χορηγοῦντας, τόν Te κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασκαλῶνα
Ν 3 / Ν , ε ᾽ Ὧν Ν / Ν ε x ~
καὶ ᾿Ιόππην καὶ Talav, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Πτολεμαίδα τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ
“- Ν
βασιλέως ἐκτισμένην. μέση δὲ κεῖται πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους
΄ 3 3 fe 7 4 + x / a yd
τόπους, οὐκ ἀπέχουσα τούτων πολύ. ἔχει δὲ πάντα δαψιλῆ κάθυγρος
3 ’ > “
οὖσα πάντοθεν ἡ χώρα καὶ μεγάλην ἀσφάλειαν ἔχουσα. περιρρεῖ
> 7 Ν / lal 4
δ᾽ αὐτὴν ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰορδάνης ποταμὸς ἀείρρους. «τῆς δὲ xwpas>
> - - y+
οὐκ ἔλαττον ἑξακισχιλίων μυριάδων ἀρουρῶν κατὰ TO ἀρχαῖον ovens
a ων fe /
(μετέπειτα δὲ of γειτνιῶντες ἐπέβησαν αὐτῆς) ἑξήκοντα μυριάδες
ἀνδρῶν ἔγκληροι καθειστήκεισαν ἑκατονταρούροις. πληρούμενος δὲ
ε , Ν ε a“ 3 a \ Ν Ν ae?
6 ποταμός, καθὼς ὃ Νεῖλος, ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τὸν θερισμὸν ἡμέραις,

πολλὴν ἀρδεύει τῆς γῆς" ὃς εἰς ἕτερον ποταμὸν ἐκβάλλει τὸ ῥεῦμα

κατὰ τὴν Πτολεμαίων χώραν, οὗτος δὲ ἔξεισιν εἰς θάλασσαν.

23 eink. pvp. ?cf Ex 39? LXx 25 cf [05.215

6 € λαικοις (sic) H εν Nak. GIT evdak. B ev ἐλαικ. KAPZ 7 om
autwy BPTZ 9 re] ra HAGIZ 10 προσδεονται BPTZ 14 εστιν
ἢ xX. κατεσκ. (κατασκ. T*) BPTZ | πολι:] Ἐ ἐστιν P 16 τον Β] των cett
τα edd 17 om Tov P 18 εκτισμενην] κατεσκευασμενὴν P | εἰρημ. BT
19 καθυγρατος GIPZ pr καὶ P 21 verba inserui 23 ὑπεβησαν P απεβ.
edd pr | μυριαδων T 26 πολυν B | εμβαλλει GBPZ 27—2 p 540 ovTos
de—Al. χωραν om A

HKAGIBP
TZ

HKAGIBP
TZ

540 APISTEAS

» Ν ’ ’ὔ
ἄλλοι δὲ χειμάρροι λεγόμενοι κατίασι, περιλαμβάνοντες τὰ πρὸς
Ν ’, of ¥ Ν Ν > , ’
τὴν Γάζαν μέρη καὶ τὴν ᾿Αζωτίων χώραν. περιέχεται δὲ ἀσφαλείαις
>
αὐτοφυέσι, δυσείσβολος οὖσα καὶ πλήθεσιν ἀπραγμάτευτος, διὰ τὸ
\ a ΄, A ‘
στενὰς εἶναι τὰς παρόδους, κρημνῶν παρακειμένων Kal φαράγγων
/ ” ες / ΄“ A
βαθέων, ἔτι δὲ τραχείας οὔσης πάσης τῆς περιεχούσης πᾶσαν THY
΄ 3 “ 3 ig “
χώραν ὀρεινῆς. Ἐλέγετο δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν παρακειμένων ὀρέων
“ 3 ’ / ἴω
τῆς Ἀραβίας μέταλλα χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου συνίστασθαι πρότε-
/ A
pov. ἐκλέλειπται δὲ ταῦτα, καθ᾽ ὃν ἐπεκράτησαν Πέρσαι χρόνον"
“A /
τῶν τότε προστατούντων ποιησαμένων διαβολήν, ὡς ἄχρηστος ἡ
’, ’ὔ
κατεργασία γίνεται καὶ πολυδάπανος, ὅπως μὴ διὰ τὴν μεταλ-
Χ ‘OL TO 5 / BH Ν Ν / θ Ἅ θ QA
εἰαν τῶν εἰρημένων συμβῇ Kal τὴν χώραν καταφθείρεσθαι, καὶ
δὸ ὃ Ν Ἂς 5 ’ὔ ὃ / > “~ ’
σχεδὸν διὰ τὴν ἐκείνων δυναστείαν ἀλλοτριωθῆναι, παρεύρεσιν
Δ 3 Ν ’ /
λαβόντων εἰς τοὺς τόπους εἰσόδου, διὰ τὸ THY διαβολὴν γεγονέναι
ταύτην.

7 Sad Ν Ν , ΕῚ “ / /
Οσον οὖν καὶ περὶ τούτων ἔδει, κεφαλαιωδῶς σεσήμαγκά σοι,
= ΄, rd a ΄
ὦ Φιλόκρατες ἀδελφέ: τὰ δὲ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἑπομένως δηλώσομεν.
ἼΠῚ Nek Ν Ν 5 / ” ὃ Ν ὃ / ὃ / bud 67;
πιλέξας yap τοὺς ἀρίστους avdpas καὶ παιδείᾳ διαφέροντας, ate δὴ
/ / / 7 “ 3 “ “
γονέων τετευχότας ἐνδόξων, οἵτινες οὐ μόνον τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶν
/ iA , ε “ ἰλλὰ Ν ἴω “-“ EXX “
γραμμάτων ἕξιν περιεποίησαν αὑτοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν ἑλληνικῶν
/ a /
ἐφρόντισαν οὐ παρέργως κατασκευῆς" διὸ Kal πρὸς τὰς πρεσβείας
»” , \ mie tS , “ 7, \ \ Ν
εὔθετοι καθεστήκεισαν, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπετέλουν ὅτε δέοι, καὶ πρὸς τὰς
ε / Ν Ν 5) / Ν Ν ω / 4 > ΄
ὁμιλίας καὶ τὰς ἐπερωτήσεις τὰς διὰ τοῦ νόμου μεγάλην εὐφυίαν
= \ / > / , a Ν , ΄ >
εἶχον, TO μέσον ἐζηλωκότες κατάστημα (τοῦτο yap καλλιστόν ἐστιν),
5 / x x Ν 4 “A / c / Ν Ν
ἀποτεθειμένοι τὸ τραχὺ καὶ βάρβαρον τῆς διανοίας, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ
\ / Ν ΄ ε “ ΒΝ ε ΄ Ν
τὸ κατοίεσθαι καὶ νομίζειν ὑπερφρονεῖν ἑτέρους ὑπερβεβηκότες, τὴν
2 ¢ / /
δ᾽ ὁμιλίαν καὶ τὸ συνακούειν Kal πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀποκρίνεσθαι δεόντως
παραδεδειγμένοι, καὶ πάντες ταῦτα συντηροῦντες καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν

/ / ε 4 - ε / Xx “~ /
τούτοις βουλόμενοι ὑπερφέρειν ἕτερος ἑτέρου, καὶ τοῦ καθηγουμένου

2 acpartes HKAGI αἀσῴαλως BPTZ txt ex conj Schmidt 5 βραχειας
I 7 μεταλα GP pera I 8 Ilepoa] pr o I 11 προειρημενων ἃ
15 om κεφαλ. P | σεσημακαμεν Z 16 δηλωσωμεν GIPZ 17 yap] ovr
HKA 18 τετευχοτως Pvid 19 eavros BT 21 απετελουν B
22 δια] ex B 27 παραδεδεγμενοι BPT 28 ὑποῴφερειν KA | erepov]
erepw PT*vid

σι

10

15

20

®IAOKPATEI. 541

s 4 Ἀ a Ἂν Le.’ 3 A a “ Φ ε > 4
πάντες ἄξιοι καὶ τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῆς. νοῆσαι δ᾽ ἦν, ὡς ἡἠγάπησαν
τὸν ᾿Ελεάζαρον δυσαποσπάστως ἔχοντες, καὶ ἐκεῖνος αὐτούς" χωρὶς

\ “ Ν / ΄, Ν a
καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα γεγραφέναι περὶ τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως
αὐτῶν πολλὰ παρεκάλεσε τὸν ᾿Ανδρέαν ποιῆσαι, συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι

a aA oN ΄ ε a

παρακαλῶν, καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν δυνώμεθα. Kal ἡμῶν ἐπαγγελλομένων Τάφρον-

τίσειν' περὶ τούτων, ἔφη καὶ λίν ὃ νιᾷν: εἰδέ ip, ὃ
περὶ τούτων, ἔφη lav διαγωνιᾷν: εἰδέναι γάρ, ὅτι

΄, xv ε ΄ ΄, , ε a \ ,
φιλάγαθος ὧν 6 βασιλεύς, πάντων μέγιστον ἡγεῖται TO μεταπέμ-
> ad “Ὁ ΄, 3 “ + ΄ 3 “
πεσθαι, καθ᾽ ὃν av τόπον ὀνομασθῇ τις avOpwros διαφέρων ἀγωγῇ

Ν ΄ Baie... 2 , \ A 8. Ὁ Ἂς / 9
καὶ φρονήσει Tap ἑτέρους. μετείληφα yap καλώς αὐτὸν λέγειν, ὅτι

y ἈΝ
περὶ ἑαυτὸν ἔχων ἄνδρας δικαίους καὶ σώφρονας τὴν μεγίστην ἂν
Ν “ λ / ee / / Ν Ν
φυλακὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἕξειν, συμβουλευόντων παρρησίᾳ πρὸς τὸ
΄ “A ἍΝ a Ἀ ’ ων 5 / ε 3
συμφέρον τῶν φίλων: ὃ δὴ σύνεστι τοῖς ἀποστελλομένοις ὑπ
a la) BA
αὐτοῦ. καὶ Ov ὅρκων ἐπιστοῦτο, μὴ προΐεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, εἴ
5 -
τις ἑτέρα χρεία πρὸς τὰ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν αὐτῷ κατεπείγοι: πρὸς δὲ τὴν
Ν ἴω ~ 7, > / 5» / > 4 Ν
κοινὴν πᾶσι τοῖς πολίταις ἐπανόρθωσιν ἐξαποστέλλειν αὐτούς. τὸ
A A ~ , an 5 A
yap καλῶς ζῇν ἐν TO τὰ νόμιμα συντηρεῖν εἶναι: τοῦτο δὲ ἐπιτε-
a x a 3 / a A x Ν A 3 ΄
λεῖσθαι διὰ τῆς ἀκροάσεως πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.
3 “ ἈΝ , >
προτιθέμενος οὖν ταῦτα καὶ TA τούτοις παραπλήσια φανερὸς ἦν τὴν
Ν Φ
διάθεσιν, ὃς ἦν πρὸς αὐτούς.

ΛΑξιον δὲ ἐπιμνησθῆναι βραχέων τῶν ὑποδειχθέντων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
πρὸς τὰ δι᾿ ἡμῶν ἐπιζητηθέντα. νομίζω γὰρ τοὺς πολλοὺς περιερ-
γίαν ἔχειν τινὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ νομοθεσίᾳ περί τε τῶν βρωτών καὶ ποτῶν,

Ν A / 9 / > , ,
και τῶν νομιζομένων ἀκαθάρτων ειναι κνωδάλων. πυνθανομένων

20 ff Lev 11. Deut 14°-”

2 δυσαποσπ.}- αὐτου B | exewos]+dnrovore nyarnoev B | avrous]+os B
3 om καὶ P | γεγραπται I 4 τον avépa B 6 τουτου P
7 φιλανος BT 9 αὑτον καλως BTZ 10 avrov BT | exwv]+o Πτο-
λεμαιος B 11 efec B 12 συνεστὴη Z 14 om ιδιαν B (in fin lin fort
evanuit) | avrwy BT 18 davepws P 20 βραχεων codd et Eus (bis scr
Eus°)] δια Bpax. Schmidt fort recte | ἐπιδειχθεντων Eusi 21 προς ἡμων
επιζητηθεντα HKA προς δι ἡμων επιζητ. GIZ* προς δε ἡμων επιζητηθεντων
BPTZ txt Eus | νομιζειν yap τοις πολλοις Ar codd (B excepto) Eus
txt B 22 τινα exe BPT | περι] pr λεγω δὲ Eus | των 2°] om Eus |
βρωματων GIBPTZ txt cett Eus 23 om και BPTZ

§ Eus

HKAGIBP
TZ Eus

HKAGIBP
TZ Eus

542 APISTEAS

Ν ε nw ὃ Ν ’ὔ wn An yy A ‘\ 3 (0 ,
γὰρ ἡμῶν, διὰ TL, μιᾶς καταβολῆς οὔσης, τὰ μὲν ἀκάθαρτα νομίζεται
Ν a Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν ε Ν / Ν Ν
πρὸς βρώσιν, τὰ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀφὴν (δεισιδαιμόνως γὰρ τὰ

lal Ν 6 / ” 3. δὲ ,ὔ / U ὃ ὃ /
πλεῖστα τὴν νομοθεσίαν ἔχειν, ἐν δὲ τούτοις FraVUT δεισι αιμόνως)
Ν a Ad ae he Efe a μὲ Ν 5 Ν
πρὸς ταῦτα οὕτως ἐνήρξατο Θεωρεῖς, ἔφη, τὰς ἀναστροφὰς

ἈΝ Ν ε / - > , an , a ε ,
καὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας, οἷον ἐνεργάζονται πρᾶγμα, διότι κακοῖς ὁμιλήσαντες 5

’ὔ
διαστροφὰς ἐπιλαμβάνουσιν ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ταλαίπωροι δι ὅλου τοῦ
-“ > ff x “-“ \ ,ὔ a > 5 A >
ζῇν εἰσιν: ἐὰν δὲ σοφοῖς καὶ φρονίμοις συζῶσιν, ἐξ ἀγνοίας ἐπανορ-
΄ > Ν 4 > , 3 Ν -“ 3 ΄
θώσεως εἰς τὸν βίον ἔτυχον. διαστειλάμενος οὖν τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας
καὶ δικαιοσύνης πρῶτον 6 νομοθέτης ἡμῶν, καὶ διδάξας ἕκαστα περὶ
/ 5 > “ , 3 os a Ν Ν ,
τούτων, οὐκ ἀπαγορευτικῶς μόνον GAN ἐνδεικτικῶς, καὶ τὰς βλάβας
προδήλους καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γινομένας ἐπιπομπὰς τοῖς αἰτίοις---
, κ᾿ ͵, a «“ , ε , > \ Ἢ
προυπέδειξε γὰρ πάντων πρῶτον, ὅτι μόνος ὃ θεός ἐστι, καὶ διὰ
πάντων ἡ δύναμις αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, πεπληρωμένου παντὸς
΄, A / Ν 92 ΧΝ βάν » “a 39 a
τόπου τῆς δυναστείας, καὶ οὐθὲν αὐτὸν λανθάνει τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ywo-
/ ε > 5 / / > > “ ““ > a“ Ν
μένων ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων κρυφίως: ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ποιεῖ τις αὐτῷ φανερὰ
, \ \ , , Aes = 9 ,
καθέστηκε, Kal τὰ μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἐξεργαζόμενος
> a Ν , ’, 3 ῳ Xv > “ /
ἀκριβῶς καὶ πρόδηλα θείς, ἔδειξεν ὅτι Kav ἐννοηθῇ τις κακίαν
3 ω 3 Ἃ ΄ AS oe \ , Ν ΄, a
ἐπιτελεῖν, οὐκ av λάθοι, μὴ ὅτι Kal πράξας, διὰ πάσης τῆς νομο-
Ὁ“ ~ >
Gecias τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ δυνατὸν ἐνδεικνύμενος. ποιησάμενος οὖν τὴν
καταρχὴν ταύτην, καὶ δείξας ὅτι πάντες οἱ λοιποὶ παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς
Ε \ \ > ΄ ΓΒΕ «τ ΄
ἄνθρωποι πολλοὺς θεοὺς εἶναι νομίζουσιν, αὐτοὶ δυναμικώτεροι
al “-“ φ , /
πολλῷ καθεστῶτες ὧν σέβονται ματαίως---ἀγάλματα yap ποιήσαντες
9 ,ὔ Ν ͵ὕ > ‘4 Ν > Cal 3 ’ \ Ν
ἐκ λίθων καὶ ξύλων, εἰκόνας φασὶν εἶναι τῶν ἐξευρόντων τι πρὸς τὸ
ζῆν αὐτοῖς χρήσιμον, οἷς προσκυνοῦσι, παρὰ πόδας ἔχοντες τὴν ἄναι-
σθησίαν. εἴτε γὰρ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνό τις ««θεὸς εἴη:-, κατὰ τὴν ἐξεύρεσιν,
8 της νομοθεσιας B| πανυ] mace Β παλιν πανυ HKA παλιν cett Eus
5 εργαζονται ΑἸΒΡ Eus‘odd det 6 δια του ζὴην Eusi δὶ odov τὴν ἕωην Eus®
8 ενετυχον BT | ow Eus] δὲ εστι B om cett 9 πρωτον o von. Eus.] o
πρωτονομοθετης Ar codd 10 evdickws Ar codd txt Eus 11 προδήλως I
ὃ προδηλωσας | ὑπο] ere P Euso°44 | om του P Eus | yevou. P Euso44 (yey.
Eus') 12 mpwrov παντων Eus P| om o BPTZ | 7 δυν. aur. δια παντ.
Eus° 13 δυναμις] εστιν GIZ | ravros] pr του B 14 οὐδὲν B | των
επιγινομενων (-νωμ. 2) PT*Z (yns suprascr Τῇ) 15 ὑπ] vro των B | κρυ-
gews GI κρυφαιως Eusi 16 epyafouevos B εξεργασαμενος Eus® 17 προ-
δηλωθεις HKA 18 λανθανοι B Aan P | δια macs] δι ολης Eus: εξ odns

Eus°® 22 πολλω Eus P] πολλων Ar codd cett 23 και] ἡ Eus 25 εἰ
τι HK AGT | eos evn corr Wendland] θειη codd Eus

“᾿

10

15

20

25

@®IAOKPATEI. 543

΄“- 3 4 “ Ν >. ~ i. ’ QA /
παντελῶς ἀνόητοι: τῶν yap ἐν τῇ κτίσει λαβόντες τινὰ συνέθηκαν
Ἀ ” Ν An
Kal προσυπέδειξαν εὔχρηστα, τὴν κατασκευὴν αὐτῶν οὐ ποιήσαντες
Ν A XN
αὐτοί: διὸ κενὸν Kal μάταιον τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀποθεοῦν. καὶ yap ἔτι
- ΄ a , an ,
καὶ νῦν εὑρεματικώτεροι καὶ πολυμαθέστεροι τῶν ἀνθρώπων TOV πρίν
> ,’ Ν > x FP > Ν “ Ἂς /
εἰσι πολλοί, καὶ οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιεν αὐτοὺς προσκυνοῦντες. καὶ νομί-
ε Lal 4 Ν / “ ε 4
ζουσιν ot ταῦτα διαπλάσαντες Kal μυθοποιήσαντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων
ε ΄ , Cal Ν ” 4 / “ ἈΝ
οἱ σοφώτατοι καθεστάναι. τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων πολυματαίων τί δεῖ καὶ
, 3 τ Ν a / 4 a. ΄ Χ
λέγειν, Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων, οἵτινες ἐπὶ θηρία καὶ
a A a ’
τῶν ἑρπετῶν τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ κνωδάλων τὴν ἀπέρεισιν πεποίηνται,
lal cal a \
καὶ ταῦτα προσκυνοῦσι, Kal θύουσι τούτοις Kal ζῶσι καὶ τελευ-
΄ x 2 .“ \ xX ε
τήσασι;--- συνθεωρήσας οὖν ἕκαστα σοφὸς ὧν 6 νομοθέτης,
~ “a ,ὔ
ὑπὸ θεοῦ κατεσκευασμένος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν ἁπάντων, περιέφραξεν
« -“ ’ὔ “-“ a \ A“
ἡμᾶς ἀδιακόποις χάραξι Kal σιδηροῖς τείχεσιν, ὅπως μηθενὶ τών
ἀλλ 30 “ > ΄ 6 Ν δέ ε Ν θ “ Ν “
ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ἐπιμισγώμεθα κατὰ μηδέν, ἁγνοὶ καθεστῶτες κατὰ σῶμα
‘\ Ν / > /, δ “ Ν / Ν Ἁ
καὶ κατὰ ψυχήν, ἀπολελυμένοι ματαίων δοξῶν, τὸν μόνον θεὸν καὶ
Ν , Ss. ¢& Ν lal / Ὁ ε > lA
δυνατὸν σεβόμενοι παρ᾽ ὅλην THY πᾶσαν κτίσιν. ὅθεν ot Αἰγυπτίων
ιφ ec “ > / > Ν Ν /
καθηγεμόνες ἱερεῖς, ἐγκεκυφότες εἰς πολλὰ Kal μετεσχηκότες
, A , ee ἃ a a
πραγμάτων, ἀνθρώπους θεοῦ προσονομάζουσιν ἡμᾶς: ὃ τοῖς λοιποῖς
3 / > , , Ν \ ar 40 θ 4 aA’ a.
ov πρόσεστιν, εἰ μή τις σέβεται τὸν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰσὶν
ω -“ a“ Ν ε Ν “ /
ἄνθρωποι βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν καὶ σκέπης: ἡ yap πᾶσα διάθεσις
3 “-“ 5 ἈΝ Lal ’ὔὕ “"Ἵ Ν Βι, "ὦ a ΕῚ 5» Ν A
αὐτῶν ἐπὶ ταῦτα καταφεύγει. τοῖς δὲ rap ἡμῶν ἐν οὐδενὶ ταῦτα λε-
I \ “ A ~ , a οὗ A “ ε ,
λόγισται, περὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυναστείας dv ὁλου τοῦ ζῇν ἡ σκέψις
4 7 > a
αὐτοῖς ἐστιν. ὅπως οὖν μηθενὶ συναλισγούμενοι μηδ᾽ ὁμιλοῦν-
΄ Τ᾿ ε “
τες φαύλοις διαστροφὰς λαμβάνωμεν, πάντοθεν ἡμᾶς περιέφραξεν

ε ΄, Ν Ν a \ “ δον δι Laila sya 5 “ Me 7
αγνειαις και διὰ βρωτῶν και πότων και apwv και AKONS και OPATEWS

1 avonrov Eus 2 ευχρηστοτατὴην (- τὴν Eus°) κατ. Eus 3 om
auto. P 4 evpnu. AB ευρετικωτεροι Eus 5 φθανοιεν Eus] φθασειαν B
(-σοιαν T) φθανοισαν cett 7 των] - μεν Eus | de] δὴ HAGI 9 κνωδ.]
pr επι Eus! | απερ εἰσι PT*Z 11 ovy] τοιγαρουν Eus' | om exacra P | o
vou. υπο 0. cop. wy P 12 κατεσκενασμενα H (a 3° sup lin) Euscodd det
13 under. Ἐπ Z μηθεν HK AGI 14 και σωμα και ψυχὴν Eus® 15 απο-
λελυμενοι Eus Ρ] -μενων cett 16 πασαν την κτ. P | Αἰγυπτίων οἱ Eus
18 εἰς πραγματα | 19 τις] τι HA (s postea suprascr H* vid A* vid) KGT
21 ἡμιν BTZ Eus® 22 om δε HAGI | om τῆς τον Eusi' 28 aurwv B* |
ουν Eus] τε ev B ev cett | μηδενι BP Eus | συναλισγομ. T Eus 24 φαυλω
Eus® γαμοις P | λαμβανοιμεν Eus | περιεῴφραξαν Eus® 25 agys Eus?

HKAGIBP
NZ, Bus

HKAGIBP
TZ Eus

544 APISTEAS

“A Ν Ν ΄ ΄ Ν Ν Ν / g
νομικῶς. τὸ yap καθόλου πάντα πρὸς τὸν φυσικὸν λόγον ὅμοια
Ν a > A
καθέστηκεν, ὑπὸ μιᾶς δυνάμεως οἰκονομούμενα, Kal καθ᾽ ἕν ἕκαστον
” , , 53) @ 3 / Ν Ν “ Ν Φ
ἔχει λόγον βαθύν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἀπεχόμεθα κατὰ τὴν χρῆσιν, καὶ οἷς
’, θ / δὲ «ε ὃ / a x ὃ ’΄ 3 ὃ ’
συγχρώμεθα. χάριν δὲ ὑποδείγματος ἕν ἢ δεύτερον ἐπιδραμών σοι
“ Ν Ν 3 Ν / / μι 9 -
σημανῶὐξ Μὴ γὰρ εἰς τὸν καταπεπτωκότα λόγον ἔλθῃς, ὅτι MY@N
= 4 ε ΄ ΄
καὶ Γὰλῆο ἢ τῶν τοιούτων χάριν περιεργίαν ποιούμενος ἐνομοθέτει
A - a tA AG Ν ε Ν oS \ / 5) ἈΝ
ταῦτα Μωῦσῆς: αλλὰ πρὸς ἁγνὴν ἐπίσκεψιν καὶ τρόπων ἐξαρτισμὸν
« ~ ’΄ ’ὔ -» -“ ~
δικαιοσύνης ἕνεκεν σεμνῶς πάντα ἄνατέτακται. “ τῶν yap πτηνῶν,
: ΄, ¢ ,
οἷς χρώμεθα, πάντα ἥμερα καθέστηκε καὶ διαφέρει καθαριότητι,
“ Ν > / , Ν ‘ ’ὔ e
πυροῖς καὶ ὀσπρίοις χρώμενα πρὸς τὴν τροφήν, οἷον περιστεραὶ
> 7ὕ + a » «“ A
τρυγόνες ATTAKO! πέρδικες ἔτι δὲ χῆνες Kal TA ἄλλα ὅσα τοιαῦτα.
- ΄, κ e 7 ” ΄ κ᾿
περὶ ὧν δὲ ἀπηγόρευται πτηνῶν, εὑρήσεις ἀγριά τε καὶ σαρκοφάγα
- \ δ΄ ’
καὶ καταδυναστεύοντα τῇ περὶ ἑαυτὰ δυνάμει τὰ λοιπά, καὶ τὴν
/ - / ε ,
τροφὴν ἔχοντα δαπάνησιν τῶν προειρημένων ἡμέρων μετὰ ἀδικίας"
3 , Ν A IAA ων \ ¥ τι γί 3 ,
ov μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, GAAG καὶ τοὺς apvas καὶ ἐρίφους ἀναρπάζουσι,
A a ,
καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δὲ ἀδικοῦσι νεκρούς τε καὶ ζῶντας. παράσημον
i 4 Ν ΄ πον , “ ᾿ 2 ‘ Ν
οὖν ἔθετο διὰ τούτων, AKABAPTA προσονομασάας, OTL δέον ἐστὶ κατὰ
/ : ε Α -
ψυχήν, οἷς ἡ νομοθεσία διατέτακται, δικαιοσύνῃ συγχρῆσθαι καὶ
/ “A >
μηδένα καταδυναστεύειν, πεποιθότας ἰσχύι τῇ καθ᾽ ἑαυτούς, μηδὲ
“- > , Ν “ ᾽ aA ε
ἀφαιρεῖσθαι μηδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ δικαίου τὰ τοῦ βίου κυβερνᾶν, ὡς τὰ
΄“ a 7 A Ν ’ “
τῶν προειρημένων πτηνῶν ἥμερα CHa τὰ φυόμενα τῶν ὀσπρίων ἐπὶ
a ~ ‘ , Ν ἈΝ ’, a
γῆς δαπανᾷ, καὶ οὐ καταδυναστεύει πρὸς τὴν ἐπαναίρεσιν τῶν συγ-

΄- A > / a
γενικῶν. διὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὖν παραδέδωκεν ὁ νομοθέτης σημειοῦ-
& fF Lev τι 11 Lev 11” 17 Deut 1438

1 νομικης ἃ Eus® -κοις P | ro] τω T Eus! 2 dvvamews] + οἰκονομικως
P | exacra Eus® 3 Noyov exec BT [απεσχομεθα KAI 5 εἰσελθης
Eusi (ελθης9) 6 περιεργιας Eus περιεργασιαν Z 7 Mwons AP Eus |
τροπων + efatperov Eus® 8 mavta] tavra BPTZ | werewwv Eus
9 καθεστηκε και Eus] καθεστηκεν a B xadeornxe cett | καθαροτητι HK BPTZ
10 χρωμεθα Καὶ | om την Καὶ Eus? 11 ατταγοι Eus' | om eve Καὶ 12 πε-
τεινων Eus 13 περι] παρ K | avra Eus εαὐτων GI | ra πολλα Z* (ra X.
Zor) των Koray B 14 δαπανησιν] pr τὴν Eus 15 apragove. Eus
17 deov] δε Eusi 19 μηδενι IB μηδενος T | πεποιθοτας Eus] -θοσιν B
-Oores (-Owr. P) cett | ry eavtwy Eus°? 20 μηθεν Eus® | ex δικαιοτατου
βιου Eus | διακυβερναν Eus°? 21 (wa nuepa B 22 eravaipecw] + οὔτε
των ὑποβεβηκοτων ouTe Eus 23 των τοιουτ.] τουτων Eus® | rapedwxev

Eus P | ομοιουσθαι BT

Io

15

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 545

θ in ts, εἶναι δικαίους τε Kal μηδὲν ἐπιτελεῖν Bi δὲ
σθαι τοῖς συνετοῖς, εἶναι δικαίους μη ιτελεῖν βίᾳ, μηδὲ
“ “ ψ
τῇ περὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἰσχύι πεποιθότας ἑτέρους καταδυναστεύειν. ὅπου
Ν 30° 7 θ θῃ lal / ὃ Ν \ LaF ὃ ,
γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἅψασθαι καθῆκε τῶν προειρημένων διὰ τὴν περὶ ἕκαστα διά-
nm ’ Ν 4 A
θεσιν, πῶς οὐ φυλακτέον παντάπασι τοὺς τρόπους εἰς τοῦτο κατακλα-
nw ’ὔ 3 Ν ~ / ἴω \ »“».
σθῆναι; πάντα οὖν τὰ τῆς συγχωρήσεως ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν
n ~ / Ν /
κτηνῶν τροπολογῶν ἐκτέθειται. TO yap AIXHAEYEIN καὶ διαστέλλειν
“ » a/ lal , 7 a ,ἷ
ὁπλῆς ONYXAaC σημεῖόν ἐστι τοῦ διαστέλλειν ἕκαστα τῶν πράξεων
γ ει Ν “ »” ε Ν > Ν “ μέ / je) ,
ἐπὶ TO καλῶς ἔχον: ἡ yap ἰσχὺς TOV ὁλων σωμάτων μετ ἐνεργείας
39 / Ἄν. Ν Ν + » Ν Ν at Ν ὃ ; An ES
ἀπέρεισιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὥμους ἔχει καὶ τὰ σκέλη. μετὰ διαστολῆς οὖν
7 5 la \ ὃ ͵ὔ 3 ’ὔ \ A 4 ͵ ὃ ν
ἅπαντα ἐπιτελεῖν πρὸς δικαιοσύνην ἀναγκάζει TTO σημειοῦσθαιϊ διὰ
7 m” δὲ Ν ὃ / Ν , 3 θ / ὃ aN θ ε
τούτων" ἔτι δὲ καὶ διότι παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους διεστάλμεθα. οἵ
Ν v2 lal a > /, ε \ 4 5 ,
yap πλείονες τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἑαυτοὺς μολύνουσιν ἐπιμισγό-
ni A fi: 10 £ \ val \ aN aX
μενοι, συντελοῦντες μεγάλην ἀδικίαν, καὶ χώραι καὶ πόλεις ὁλαι
Ye \ »”
σεμνύνονται ἐπὶ τούτοις. οὐ μόνον γὰρ «προάγουσι: τοὺς ἀρσενας,
x Ν \ , ΜΝ δὲ 6 7 4 ε a δὲ 5 \
αλλὰ καὶ τεκούσας ἔτι δὲ θυγατέρας μολύνουσιν. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀπὸ
4 / Ν «Ὁ δὲ > Ν ε / ”~ ὃ
τούτων διεστάλμεθα. περὶ ὃν δὲ ἐστὶν ὃ προειρημένος τῆς δια-
a , A > \ A ,ὕ ΄,
στολῆς τρόπος, περὶ τοῦτον εἶναι καὶ τὸν τῆς μνήμης κεχαρακτή-
/ co “ \ > 4 »
ρικεν. TIANTA γὰρ ὅοὰ AIXHAET καὶ MHPYKICMON ἀνάγει σαφώς
-“ »-“ Ν nw /, ε x 3, 4 ὮΝ \
τοῖς νοοῦσιν ἐκτίθεται TO τῆς μνήμης. ἢ γὰρ ἀναμηρύκησις οὐθὲν
[} 3 Ν ad A Ν / ΕἸ / Ν Ν an ἣν
ἕτερον, ἀλλὰ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ συστάσεως ἐπίμνησις. τὸ γὰρ ζῇν διὰ

6 Lev 11° ff (Deut 14° ff) 18 Lev 11° ff

1 om re P Eus? vid 2 αὐτοὺς Eus | ετερων BT 4 ov] ow KAIG*t
(corr G™s) 5 παντα ουν Eus] παντων (+ δε B) Ar codd | τα Eus] om Ar
codd | rns συγχ. Eus' Ar codd] ra συγχωρηθεντα Eus°® | μιν} om Eus°
μων evexa B txt Eus! Ar cett 6 εκτεθειται Eus'] εξεθετο B εκθεοιται (-τε
GI) Ar codd cett εκτεθεικε Eus® | διχηλιζειν K 7 οπλας B | σημεια B |
exaoTynv P 10 το σημειουσθαι HKAGIZ (το σημ. και Eus') το ομοιουσθαι
Τ (τω ομ. B) τω σημ. Eus®, pro ἀπαντα 10---μολυνουσιν 12 exhibens βιωσκο-
μεν" TW σημειουσθαι οτι Tapa παντας ανθρωπους διαστελλομεθα" οἱ yap αλλοι
μολυνουσιν eautous. Fortasse legendum ο σημειουται 12 ανθρωπων] om
Eus 13 oda] οσαι B 14 ἐπι Tour. σεμν. Eus® | προαγουσι conj
Schmidt] προσαγουσι codd et Eus qui legit προς apoevas (app.°) προσαγουσιν
15 de]+xac HKA Eus° 16 ἐσταλμεθα BPTZ | ov] wy BPT 17 τροπος
BPT Eus] τοπος cett | rourwy BPT | και τ. τ. μν. εἰναι Eus® | το τὴν μνημὴν
P | κεχαρακτηρικεναι (-τηκεναι Z) codd Ar txt Eus 18 παντα] ειπας
Eusi 19 εκτιθεται Eus] εκτιθεμαι (εκτιθημι P) Ar codd | οὐδεν B
20 αλλ ἡ Eus® | συστασεωΞς] pr τῆς B | ὑπομνησις εστι Eus

Su: 35

HKAGIBP
TZ Eus

HKAGIBP
TZ Eus

546 APISTEAS

τῆς τροφῆς συνεστάναι νομίζει. διὸ παρακελεύεται καὶ διὰ τῆς
γραφῆς ὁ λέγων οὕτως: Μνείὰ MNHCOHCH κγρίογ TOY TTOIHCANTOC
EN οοι τὰ λεγάλὰ Kal θαγλλὰστά. κατανοούμενα γὰρ καὶ λεγάλὰ
Kal ἔνλοξὰ φαίνεται: πρῶτον μὲν ἡ σύμπηξις τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἡ
τῆς τροφῆς διοίκησις καὶ ἡ περὶ ἕκαστον μέλος διαστολή: πολλῷ
δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ τῶν αἰσθήσεων διακόσμησις, διανοίας ἐνέργημα καὶ
κίνησις ἀόρατος, ἥ τε ὀξύτης τοῦ πρὸς ἕκαστόν τι πράσσειν, καὶ
τεχνῶν εὕρεσις ἀπέραστον περιέχει τρόπον. διὸ παρακελεύεται
μνείαν ἔχειν, ὡς συντηρεῖται τὰ προειρημένα θείᾳ δυνάμει σὺν
κατασκευῇ. πάντα γὰρ χρόνον καὶ τόπον ὥρικε πρὸς τὸ διὰ
παντὸς μνημονεύειν τοῦ κρατοῦντος θεοῦ καὶ συντηροῦντος. καὶ
γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν ἀπαρξαμένους εὐθέως τότε Tovy-
χρῆσθαιΐ κελεύει. καὶ μὴν καὶ ἐκ τῶν περιβολαίων παράσημον
ἡμῖν μνείας δέδωκεν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πγλῶν καὶ θυρῶν
προστέταχε μὲν ἡμῖν τιθέναι τὰ λόγια, πρὸς τὸ μνείαν εἶναι θεοῦ"
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χειρῶν δὲ διαρρήδην τὸ σημεῖον κελεύει περιῆφθδι,
σαφῶς ἀποδεικνὺς ὅτι πᾶσαν ἐνέργειαν μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἐπιτελεῖν
δεῖ, μνήμην ἔχοντας τῆς «ἑαυτῶν κατασκευῆς:-, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τὸν περὶ
θεοῦ φόβον. κελεύει δὲ καὶ KOITAZOMENOYC Kal AlANICTAMENOYC
μελετᾷν τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ κατασκευάς, οὐ μόνον λόγῳ, ἀλλὰ διαλήψει
2 ff Deut 5:8: 107 14 ff Deut 67 ff

1 om και Eus 2 om o Eus | xupiov]+7ov θεου Eus 3 και mey.
(καὶ θαυμαστα P) και ενδ.} και ενδοξα kar μεγαλα Eusi evdoéa Eus®
4 mpwra Eus°? ἡ συμπ. ἡ του σ. Eus' ἡ του σ. συμπ. Eus? | καὶ 295] om
BPTZ 5 μερος Eus? 6 7 rwv BP] ἡ τὴς των cett Eus! 8 επε-
pacrov περιεχει Καὶ Eus amepavrov παρεχει BPTZ txt HAGI 9 7a
προειρ.] om BT +ouvexoueva Eus! | devas δυναμεως P | συν κατασκευὴ ΚΙ]
συγκατασκενὴ (και συγκ. BT1A°"T) codd cett Eus' (om Eus®) 10 τοπὸον και
χρονον Eus! χρονων kat Tporrov P 11 και συντηρουντος) συντηρουντας Kat
τας apXas και μεσοτητας και TeXevTas Eus! (om καὶ συντηρ.---κελευει 18 Ετι59)
12 ποτων] pr των GI | απαρξ.] αρξαμενους I αρπαΐζομενους K om BT | συγ-
χρησθαι Eus] συγχωρησαι Ar codd 14 em] pr emt των πόλεων Kat
οἰκήσεων δια To σκεπαΐεσθαι και Eus 15 προστεταχε μεν] προστεταχεν
Eus 16 το σημ. Stapp. P | περιειληφθαι PZ περι... φθαι (ras 3 litt) T
18 της eavTwy κατασκευὴης Eus] avtns B tos P και τοις Z rns codd cett
(cum seqq conj) τῆς nuwy συστάσεως edd pr | om de Z| περι] του P Eus?

19 διανισταμενους] + και πορευομενοὺυς Eus 20 Noyw μονον Eus | αλλα]
+xa KP Eus

Io

15

20

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂. 547

A δ , \ ε ΄ὕ ε A “ 9 ”
θεωροῦντας τὴν κίνησιν Kat ὑπόληψιν ἑαυτῶν, ὅταν εἰς ὕπνον
Ν «ε ἡ) κα /
ἔρχωνται, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν, ὡς θεία τίς ἐστι καὶ ἀκατάληπτος τούτων
ε / />d> / ‘ \ Ν lal / “
n μετάθεσις. δΔέδεικται δέ σοι καὶ τὸ περισσὸν τῆς λογίας τῆς
\ Ἂς Ν δ » ε 2¢ / ἊΝ , \ Ἂς
κατὰ τὴν διαστολὴν καὶ μνείαν, ὡς ἐξεθέμεθα τὴν διχηλίαν καὶ τὸν
, \ ~ Ν ‘ Ν X\
μηρυκισμὸν. οὐ yap εἰκῆ καὶ κατὰ TO ἐμπεσὸν εἰς ψυχὴν νενομο-
4 ΑΝ ΟΞ 3 60 ‘ / > A / /,
θέτηται, πρὸς ὃ ἀλήθειαν καὶ σημείωσιν ὀρθοῦ λόγου. διατάξας
ἧς ΕῚ Ν “-“ Ν A Xx “ Ν Ν ¢€ Ν “ Δ
γὰρ ἐπὶ βρωτῶν καὶ ποτών καὶ τών κατὰ τὰς ἁφὰς ἕκαστα, κελεύει
a , / / / a A
μηθὲν εἰκῆ μήτε πράσσειν μήτε ἀκούειν, μήτε τῇ τοῦ λόγου
A
δυναστείᾳ συγχρωμένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν τρέπεσθαι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν
΄ 3 ΄ a \ /
κνωδάλων δὲ ταὐτόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν. κακοποιητικὸς yap 6 τρόπος
~ a a U
ἐστὶ καὶ PaAHC καὶ ΛΎΩΝ καὶ τῶν τούτοις ὁμοίων, ὅσα διηγόρευται.
΄ Ν / \ A ,
πάντα yap λυμαίνονται καὶ κακοποιοῦσι μύες, οὐ μόνον πρὸς τὴν
ε - ΄ 3 Ἁ ΩΝ 5 \ a 4 id Ψ
ἑαυτών τροφὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ «εἰς TO> παντελώς ἄχρηστον γίνεσθαι ἀν-
ε \ ΄ ἐς ΄, A , = i
θρώπῳ, ὅτι av δή ToT οὖν ἐπιβάληται κακοποιεῖν. TO τε τῆς γαλῆς
΄ ΄ Ν la ΄
γένος ἰδιάζον ἐστί: χωρὶς γὰρ τοῦ προειρημένου ἔχει λυμαντικὸν κατά-
\ \ A 7 , “ιν A ΄
στημα' διὰ γὰρ τῶν ὦτων συλλαμβάνει, τεκνοποιεῖ δὲ τῷ στόματι.
\ ἈΝ an ε A , ΄ > / > / 7
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὃ τοιοῦτος τρόπος τῶν ἀνθρώπων αἀκαθαρτίς ἐστιν"
“ ‘ ὃ yeas A x , A A λ ΄, ΄,
ὅσα γὰρ du ἀκοῆς λαβόντες, ταῦτα τῷ λόγῳ σωματοποιήσαντες,
κακοῖς ἑτέρους ἐνεκύλισαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἐπετέλεσαν,
θέ > \ = S A a 3 / A λῶ δὲ
μιανθέντες αὐτοὶ παντάπασι τῷ τῆς ἀσεβείας μολυσμῷ. καλῶς δὲ
~ ε ‘ ς A \ , 3 A \ ἥ
ποιῶν ὃ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν τοὺς τοιούτους ἀναιρεῖ, καθὼς μεταλαμβά-
> ἧς ? ae \ > \ ” , i ‘ Ν
νομεν.--- Eyw δ᾽ εἶπα Τοὺς ἐμφανιστὰς οἴομαί σε λέγειν: καὶ γὰρ
ἴω ε
αἰκίαις καὶ θανάτοις ἐπαλγέσιν αὐτοὺς περιβάλλει συνεχῶς.----Ὁ δέ

Τούτους γὰρ καὶ λέγω: ἡ γὰρ ἐπαγρύπνησις ἀνθρώπων ἀπωλείᾳ
11 Lev 1179

1 τα κινηματα Eus? | υποληψιν] pr τὴν Eus 2 epxovra GIZ 2f.%7
TouTwy μεταθεσις Eus 3 εὐλογίας A adoyias P 4 εξεθεσθαι Eusi | om
τον Eus! 5 και Eus] om Ar codd 7 και ποτων GIPZ Eus‘] om Ar
codd cett Eus® 8 τὴ Eus] om Ar codd 9 xpwuevous I 10 ff. ἐστιν
o τροπος Eus° 12 λυμαινεται B | και κακοπ.---τροῴφὴην adda (13) om
BETZ 13 εἰς τὸ Eus'] om Ar Euscodd cett | yuverar BPZ 17 τουτο]
tout ovy Eus'® | τοις ανθρωποις Eus! 19 erepos T | ακαθαρσιαν]-τε Eus |
αἀπετελεσαν B* Eusi 21 ἡμων T Eusi? | αναιρειν GI 23 emadyeou (om
autous) K |παραβαλλει Eus! (περιβ. Eus?) 24 rovrovs—eraypuTv yas |
τουτοις yap emayp. Eus! eraypum. yap Eus® | εἰς ανθρωπων ἀαπωλειαν Eus txt
(cf Diod 14. 68 επηγρυπνηκως Tn τουτων απωλεια)ὴ Ar codd

Soi.

HKAGIBP
TZ Eus

4 Eus

§ Jos

HKAGIBP
TZ Eus Jos

548 APISTEAS

ἍΝ ε Ν / ε a ΄ ΄ ΄ ΄ »” ,
ἀνόσιος. ὃ δὲ νόμος ἡμῶν κελεύει μήτε λόγῳ μήτε ἔργῳ μηδένα
a Ν Ἀ ,ὕ᾿ > 9 oe, A ὃ AAG
κακοποιεῖν. καὶ περὶ τούτων οὖν, ὅσον ἐπὶ βραχὺ «διεξῆλθον,
/ Ν ’
προσυποδείξας:-- σοι διότι πάντα κεκανόνισται πρὸς δικαιοσύνην,

καὶ οὐδὲν εἰκῆ κατατέτακται διὰ τῆς γραφῆς οὐδὲ θυμωδῶς, ἀλλ᾽

΄ > 7 lal ΄- Ν > “ / 5 ων 4
iva δι ὁλου του ζῆν καὶ €V ταις πράξεσιν ασκωμεν δικαιοσύνην 5

΄ / ~ 4 A
πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, μεμνημένοι τοῦ δυναστεύοντος θεοῦ. περὶ
a = A a / nw
βρωτῶν οὖν καὶ τῶν ἀκαθάρτων, ἑρπετῶν καὶ κνωδάλων, Kal πᾶς
Ν “ ,
λόγος ἀνατείνει πρὸς δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων συνανα-
Ν ΄ὔ 3 Ν Ν .᾿ a a. ΣῊΜ Ν
στροφὴν δικαίαν. Ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν καλῶς ἐνόμιζε περὶ
ε ’ > “ Ν Ν 5 Ν “ ᾽ὔ ΕΙΣ
ἑκάστων ἀπολογεῖσθαι: καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν προσφερομένων ἐλεγε
lal ἈΝ / μὲ “ lal Ν
μόσχων τε καὶ κριῶν καὶ χιμάρων, ὅτι δεῖ ταῦτα ἐκ βουκολίων καὶ
Ψ, / iA / Ν Ν 4 9 ε
ποιμνίων λαμβάνοντας ἥμερα θυσιάζειν, καὶ μηθὲν ἄγριον, ὅπως ot
΄ Ν / 4 A A
προσφέροντες τὰς θυσίας μηθὲν ὑπερήφανον ἑαυτοῖς συνιστορῶσι,
/ / Lal Lal nw n
σημειώσει κεχρημένοι TOD διατάξαντος. τῆς yap ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς
lal / Ν “ Ν
τοῦ παντὸς τρόπου τὴν προσφορὰν ποιεῖται ὃ τὴν θυσίαν προσάγων.
Ν Ν , > / Ν a ε ,ὔ Sd / ,
Kal περὶ τούτων οὖν νομίζω τὰ τῆς ὁμιλίας ἄξια λόγου καθεστάναι"
/ / “ / “
διὸ τὴν σεμνότητα καὶ φυσικὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ νόμου προῆγμαι δια-
lal VA \ ΄,
σαφῆσαί σοι, Φιλόκρατες, dv ἣν ἔχεις φιλομαθειαν.

ὃ Ὃ δὲ ᾿Ἔλεάζξαρος ποιησάμενος θυσίαν καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐπιλέξας

\ Ν lal a a / / c -»" A
καὶ πολλὰ δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ κατασκευάσας προέπεμψεν ἡμᾶς μετὰ
ἀσφαλείας πολλῆς. ὡς δὲ παρεγενήθημεν εἰς ᾿Αλεξανδρειαν, προσ-

1 ανοσιον Eus® | λογω] vouw BTZ 1f. κακοποιειν μηδενα Eus
2 ow] de P | οσον---διεξηλθον) διεξηλθον Bpaxv Eus° | διεξελθειν Ar codd
(-ελθη P) Eus' 3 προσυποδειξαντα Ar codd Eus' δεικνυων Eus® | διοτι]

οτι Eus° 4 μυθωδως B Eus | αλλ wa] adda Η 6 μεμνημενους BPTZ
7 ουν] ον P | και 3°] o Eus 8 avacrpopnyv P 9 Ῥενομιζετο 10 υπο-
λογεισθαι G απολελογησθαι Eus | exe Ar codd Eus'] και περι Eus® 11 om

τε Eus' | de. Eus] ἀεὶ Ar codd 12 λαμβανοντες Omissis ἡμερα---προσ- —

φεροντες (13) BPTZ | θυσιαζειν] κατασκευαζειν Eus 13 συνιστορουσι P
14 kexpnuevor Eus] kexpnuevov Ar codd 16 και περι---σεμνοτητα (17)] om
K | αξιολογου καθ. HAGTZ αξιολογως καθ. P aka καθεσταναι λογου Eus?

17 διο] δια Eus | και φυσ. διαν. om Eus | νομου] Ἐν Eus 18 om σοι
BPTZ Eus? | Φιλοκρατες BT Eus] Φιλοκρατὴη codd cett 20 παρασκευ-
agas P 21 AXdefavd.]+Kxac P | προσαγγελλει ἃ (-ελει I -ηγγελει ATZ)

txt HKP (B προσηγγελλη)

Lal

-

Io

15

20

®IAOKPATEI. 549

, A A \ “ ἈΠῸ ἡ ε A δ ᾽ >
ἡγγέλη τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ τῆς ἀφίξεως ἡμῶν. «παρειμένοι-:- δ᾽ εἰς
3 , / > 4
τὴν αὐλὴν ᾿Ανδρέας τε καὶ ἐγώ, φιλοφρόνως ἠσπασάμεθα Tov
, \ Ν 3 \ > , Ν Ar > ΄
βασιλέα καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἀποδεδώκαμεν παρὰ τοῦ ᾿Βλεαζάρου.
\ a Ν ’ ~ > / > , > a
περὶ πολλοῦ δὲ ποιούμενος τοῖς ἀπεσταλμένοις ἀνδράσιν ἐντυχεῖν,
/ ~ ~ a
ἐκέλευσε τοὺς λοιποὺς πάντας ἀπολῦσαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν χρειῶν,
a , Ὄ “
καλεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. οὗ πᾶσι παραδόξου φανέντος---διὰ τὸ
ῳ > , > , ” A \
κατὰ ἔθος εἶναι, πεμπταίους εἰς πρόσωπον ἔρχεσθαι βασιλεῖ τοὺς
κ᾿ , ΕἸ , ‘ Ἀ Ν ,ὔ x ᾽ὔ >
περὶ χρήσιμον ἀφικνουμένους, τοὺς δὲ παρὰ βασιλέων ἢ πόλεων ἐν
ε a , > 4 5 Ν 3 Ν / \ Ν
ὑπεροχαῖς μόλις ἐν τριάκοντα εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν παρίεσθαι---τοὺς δὲ
ψ a - , / a
ἥκοντας τιμῆς καταξιῶν μείζονος, Kal τὴν ὑπεροχὴν κρίνων τοῦ
5 4, ἃ / «ε al
πέμψαντος, ἀπολύσας οὗς ἐνόμιζε περισσούς, ὑπέμενε περιπατῶν,
9 Xx , δ -
ἕως av παραγινομένους ἀσπάσηται. παρελθόντων δὲ σὺν τοῖς
7 ’ a
ἀπεσταλμένοις δώροις καὶ ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις, ἐν ais ἡ
, / ’ ὩΣ “ A /
νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς lovdaikois γράμμασι, θαυ-
4 “ ε / ‘ ~ ~
μασίως «εἰργασμένου τοῦ vuévos>, καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολῆς
oy τ ν᾽ ᾽ὔ ε 3.0. ε Ν Ἂς yy
ἀνεπαισθήτου κατεσκευασμένης, ws εἶδεν 6 βασιλεὺς τοὺς ἄνδρας,
’ ~ 5 ε ζω
ἐπηρώτα περὶ τῶν βιβλίων. ὡς δὲ ἀπεκάλυψαν τὰ τῶν ἐνειλημάτων
Ν c > ‘ ’ὔ’
καὶ τοὺς ὑμένας ἀνείλιξαν, πολὺν ἐπιστὰς χρόνον καὶ προσκυνήσας
ΟΝ Ξ ’, 3 3 an / ΕΣ δ. Ἂς A > 3 ,
σχεδὸν ἑπτάκις εἶπεν Εὐχαριστῶ μέν, ἄνδρες, ὑμῖν, τῷ δ᾽ ἀποστεί-
A “ ~ e /
λαντι μᾶλλον, μέγιστον δὲ τῷ θεῷ, οὗτινός ἐστι τὰ λόγια
a , , , ΄ π᾿
ταῦτα. ὁμοθυμαδὸν δὲ πάντων εἰπόντων ὑπὸ μίαν φωνήν, τῶν
’ “ > nw ,
τε παραγεγονότων Kal τῶν συμπαρόντων, Εὖ βασιλεῦ, προήχθη

δακρῦσαι τῇ χαρᾷ πεπληρωμένος. ἢ γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς ἔντασις καὶ τὸ

1 παρειμεν ὃ HGIZ παρημεν ὃ ΚΑΡΤ ws δε παρημεν B txt ex conj
Schmidt 3 επιδεδωκαμεν BZ Fort leg ἀπεδωκ. (απεδοσαν Jos) | rapa]
pr tas GIP 4 περι] pr και PTZ | ποιουμενος7- ο βασιλεὺς BP δὃὅ απαν-
tas P 7 κατα εθνος HKAGIPT κατα εθνους Z απο εθνους B txt ex Jos

(παρα To εθοΞ) 8 περι] +7. B | χρησιμον] fort χρηματισμον | om ev HP
9 umepoxns P | τριακοντα] ἃ nuepas B 10 του] τους Καὶ 11 ὑπεμεινε Β
txt cett cum Jos*4 (περιεμενεν) 12 παραγενομενους BT 14 om τοις Z

15 epyacauevov K (ειργ. 1) εἰργασμενης ΒΊΓοοΙτ (-ov T*) εργασμενης P | rns
υμενου HK°GIBPT©™ του ὑμενου A| trys] τοις P | συμπλοκης Z 16 ave-

παισθητως BY° | κατεσκευασμενη HKAGI 17 erepwra GIB*P | εν-
εἰληματων Jos] ανειληματων (-λημμ. GIPTZ) Ar codd 20 ovrwos BT]
Twos cett (ov Jos) 21 εἰποντων de παντ. ou. Καὶ 23 rns xapas BT

evtacis PZ] εκστασις B ενστασις cett

HKAGIBP
TZ Jos

HKAGIBP
TZ Jos

550 APISTEAS

nm a a > ‘ /
τῆς τιμῆς ὑπερτεῖνον δακρύειν ἀναγκάζει κατὰ τὰς ἐπιτυχίας.
> 4 4 Ἀ - ° ΄
κελεύσας δὲ εἰς τάξιν ἀποδοῦναι τὰ τεύχη, τὸ τηνικαῦτα ἀσπασά-
Ν ΕἾ > , > a) a »” ὃ - , en
μενος τοὺς avopas εἶπε Δίκαιον ἦν, θεοσεβεῖς ἄνδρες, ὧν χάριν ὑμᾶς
lal Ν 3 a “
μετεπεμψάμην, ἐκείνοις πρῶτον σεβασμὸν ἀποδοῦναι, μετὰ ταῦτα
~ “-“ “Ὕ -“ £
τὴν δεξιὰν ὑμῖν mpotetvar’ διὸ πεποίηκα τοῦτο πρῶτον. μεγάλην
τ ’ > Ν
δὲ τέθειμαι τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην, ἐν ἣ παραγεγόνατε, καὶ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν
“ a ε a , Ν
ἐπίσημος ἔσται πάντα τὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν χρόνον: συντέτυχε γὰρ
“ n /
καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν νίκην ἡμῖν προσπεπτωκέναι τῆς πρὸς ᾿Αντίγονον
’ an / ΕἸ ε a ,
ναυμαχίας. διὸ καὶ δειπνῆσαι σήμερον μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν βουλήσομαι.
’ “ 5" e ,
πάντα «δ᾽ vplv>, εἶπε, παρέσται καθηκόντως, οἷς συγχρήσησθε,
> Ν > ε a a ἈΝ > / as oF ’
κἀμοὶ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. τῶν δὲ ἀσμενισάντων ἐκέλευσε καταλύ-
an Ν 7 , n~ >” 3 lal Ν Ν \
pata δοθῆναι τὰ κάλλιστα πλησίον τῆς ἄκρας αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὰ κατὰ
Ἀ / ,
τὸ συμπόσιον ἑτοιμαζειν.
ε 3 ΄ a δι
O δὲ ἀρχίητρος Νικάνωρ Δωρόθεον προσκαλεσάμενος, ὃς -:ἦν:-
‘\
ἐπὶ τούτων ἀποτεταγμένος, ἐκέλευσε τὴν ἑτοιμασίαν εἰς ἕκαστον ἐπι-
“ > Ν 9 , eek a / aA Ν ΝΜ
τελεῖν. ἣν γὰρ οὕτω διατεταγμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως, ἃ μὲν ἔτι
Ν a ε ~ μὲ Ν / 3 , a “ » “ lal
καὶ νῦν ὁρᾷς: ὁσαι yap πόλεις εἰσίν, «αἵ τοῖς αὐτοῖς:- συγχρῶνται
Ν “ a
πρὸς τὰ ποτὰ Kal βρωτὰ καὶ στρωμνάς, τοσοῦτοι Kal προεστῶτες
φ ¢ of
ἦσαν: καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἐθισμοὺς οὕτως ἐσκευάζετο, ὅταν παραγένοιντο
Ν Ν ων ν Ν ἢ 7 c aA ἣν 4
πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς, ἵνα κατὰ μηθὲν δυσχεραίνοντες ἱλαρῶς διεξά-
Ν x
yoow: ὃ καὶ περὶ τούτους ἐγεγόνε. προσεχέστατος yap ὧν
4 “ /
avOpwros ὁ Δωρόθεος εἶχε τὴν τῶν τοιούτων προστασίαν. συνέ:-
Ν / Ν 3 > a / Ν Ν ΄ ε ὃ Ἂν
στρωσε δὲ πάντα τὰ OL αὐτοῦ χειριζόμενα, πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ὑποδοχὰς
a a“ lal Ls
διαμεμερισμένα. διμερῆ τε ἐποίησε τὰ τῶν κλισιῶν, καθὼς προσέ-
1 τιμη5] ψυχης AZ | νπερ τινων P 4 σεβασμον---πρωτον (5)] om P&t
ins P™ | μεταδουναι Z| μετα] pr και B 5 mporewat] mpodovva B
6 τιθεμαι B 8 ra] om PZ hab Β 4 Τ sup lin cett 9 om ka B | μων
BZ | βουλησωμαι P 10 παντὰα ὃ υμιν ex conj] παντὰα δυναμιν HKAGI
mavTa δυναιμὴν P πασαν δυναμιν BTZ | παρεσταναι BT | συγχρησησθε
HKGI] συγχρήσεσθε (-σεσθαι Z) cett 11 καμε BT 12 ra 29] om TZ
14 os nv] os (ws P) wy codd 15 f. αποτελειν BT επιτελη P txt cett
17 αἱ τοις avros] ais BT os cett txt ex Jos (οσαι τοις avrows χρωνται) cor-
rexi (fort ac praeferendum) 18 Bpwra και ποτα K | Bpwuara BPTZ |
στρωμνας BT] στρωμναῖς cett | τοσουταις P τοσουτο Z 19 παραγενωνται
BT 20 μηδὲν B 21 προσεχεστατα et om yap ὡν---παντα (23) A

21 f. wy ανθρωποΞς] avOp. wy B wy P 23 arodoxas P 24 διαμεμετρημενα
BPTZ | διμερη BZT (sed ras 1 litt int ε et p in T) Jos] διμετρη P διαμερη cett

σι

Io

15

20

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 551

ε vi Ν SX ε / 3 ’ - reid lal
tagev ὁ βασιλεύς: τοὺς yap ἡμίσεις ἐκέλευσεν ἀνὰ χεῖρα κατα-
a Ν Ἀν ‘\ \ Ν ε A δ / ὑδὲ ὃλλ Ν >
κλῖναι, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ κλισίαν, οὐδὲν ἐλλιπὼν εἰς
lal 5 ε / cal
TO τιμᾶν τοὺς ἄνδρας. Ὡς δὲ κατεκλίθησαν, ἐκέλευσε τῷ
7 a 3 a e a / ε Δ Ν
Δωροθέῳ τοῖς ἐθισμοῖς οἷς χρῶνται πάντες Ol παραγινόμενοι πρὸς
> Nv > \ ων 5 , 7 5 “ \ \ ε ,
αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, οὕτως ἐπιτελεῖν. διὸ τοὺς ἱεροκήρυκας
Ν ΄ Ν \ ll ss ” Η͂Σ Ν Ν a
καὶ θύτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, οἷς ἔθος ἢν τὰς κατευχὰς ποιεῖσθαι,
’ὔ -“ ,ὔ N c n 3 y+
παρῃτήσατο: τῶν δὲ παραγεγονότων σὺν- ἡμῖν EXedlapov ὄντα
“ ΄, / \
τῶν ἱερέων πρεσβύτερον παρεκάλεσε ποιήσασθαι κατευχήν, ὃς
», > ’ ral ~ a
ἀξιολόγως στὰς εἶπε Πληρώσαι σε, βασιλεῦ, πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν
Ὁ a?
ὧν ἔκτισεν ὃ παντοκράτωρ θεός: καὶ δῴη σοι ταῦτ᾽ ἔχειν καὶ γυναικὶ
, lal wn A “ al
καὶ τέκνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁμονοοῦσι πάντα ἀνέκλειπτα TOV τῆς ζωῆς
4 Ν “ / / cal
χρόνον. Εἰπόντος δὲ ταῦτα τούτου κατερράγη κρότος μετὰ κραυγῆς
Ν “ cal
καὶ χαρᾶς εὐφροσύνου πλείονα χρόνον" Kai TO τηνικαῦτα πρὸς TO
’ὔ nw ε wn nw
τέρπεσθαι διὰ τῶν ἡτοιμασμένων ἐτράπησαν, τῶν λειτουργιῶν
«ε a ὃ Ν al “ θέ lee 3 λ / > e Ν
ἁπασῶν διὰ τῆς τοῦ Δωροθέου συντάξεως ἐπιτελουμένων: ἐν οἷς καὶ

Ν a > \ a , GF -N las / q
βασιλικοὶ παῖδες ἦσαν, Kal TOV τιμωμένων ὑπὸ TOD βασιλέως.

/ / 3 , \ 4 Ν
Ὅτε δὲ καιρὸν ἔλαβεν ἐκ διαστήματος, ἠρώτησε τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν
, 5 / Ss X\ > ε ΄ be > /
πρώτην ἀνάκλισιν (ἦσαν yap Kad ἡλικίαν THY ἀνάπτωσιν πεποιη-
, “a a Ν V4 / / 4 μὴ
μένοι) Πῶς av τὴν βασιλείαν μέχρι τέλους ἀπταιστον ἔχων
~ > ε Ἕ , ,
διατελοῖ; βραχὺ δὲ ἐπισχὼν εἶπεν Οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα διευθύνοις,
a fal / Ν
μιμούμενος τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ διαπαντὸς ἐπιεικές. μακροθυμίᾳ γὰρ

Ν 4 39
χρώμενος, καὶ βλιμάζων τοὺς ἀξίους ἐπιεικέστερον, καθὼς εἰσιν

1 εκελευσεν] προσεταξεν P| ava χειρα Jos] αναρχα Ar codd 3f. τὸν HKAGIBP
Δωροθεον Jos 4 τοὺς εθισμους BT | παραγενομενοι BPTZ 6 os] ovs H TZ Jos

8 mapexadece A Jos] παρεκαλεσαν cett | ποιησεσθαι P 9 εἰπε] ad hoc

add + edt Gtxt εἶ Ime evxn B™S | βασιλευς 1 10 ka 2°2}om ἃ 11 wns]
+ σου BPTZ 12 om τουτου BTZ 18 yap] de K | avarrw A* (ow
sup lin in H) 19 απταιστον μ. τελους I 19 exw διατελοι H* AGI
exwv διατελοιη HO exw διατελειν K διατελοίη exwy BT txt Z 20 μα-
Nora] καλλιστα P | διευθυνεις HK*A -vys P 22 βλημαζων codd (βληζων
suprascripto μα P). A* βλημαΐζων habuisse videtur, sed βλημ in eroupvid
mutatum est. Hinc δοκιμαξζων F ετοιμαζων 1, κριματαζων D* (afwy cum
lacuna D*)

HKAGIB
i

PTZ

552 APISTEAS

» ‘ 5 a ᾽, Ν ΕἸ 4 Μ Ἵ
ἄξιοι, μετατιθεὶς ἐκ τῆς κακίας καὶ εἰς μετάνοιαν ἀξεις. ἔπαι-
, ς e¢ ‘ \ a. Ψ Sr: A Ἃ “ ,
νέσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Tov ἐχόμενον ἡρωτα: Πῶς av ἕκαστα πράττοι;
ε Ν > / Ν / > \ . “ ε “- nA
ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη To δίκαιον εἰ πρὸς ἅπαντας διατηροῖ, ἑαυτῷ καλῶς
τὰ ἕκαστα πράξει, διαλαμβάνων ὅτι πᾶν ἐννόημα σαφές ἐστι θεῷ:
ρ ’ " Ἴμ ;
’ὔ / Ν A
καταρχὴν δὲ θείου φόβου λαμβάνων ἐν οὐδενὶ διαπίπτοις. Καὶ
a \ > , ΄ “ 2 ΄ a Ἃ ε ΄
τοῦτον δὲ εὖ μάλα παραδεξάμενος ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα ἸΠῶς ἂν ὁμοίους
ε a 4 ‘ ΄ 3 a ts 3 θ / /
ἑαυτῷ ἔχοι τοὺς φίλους; κἀκεῖνος εἶπεν Hi θεωροίησαν πολλὴν σε
/ e Ν » Ν lal ’ὔ
πρόνοιαν ποιούμενον ὧν ἄρχεις ὄχλων: σι δὲ τοῦτο πράξεις ἐπι-
lal ~ ,
βλέπων ws ὁ θεὸς εὐεργετεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, 6 ὑγείαν
an Ν Ν ΄
αὐτοῖς καὶ τροφὴν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ κατὰ καιρὸν παρασκευάζων
“ / 4 / > ’
ἅπαντα. Συνεπιμαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτῳ τὸν ἐχόμενον ἠρώτα
an Ἅ A “- ,
Πῶς ἂν ἐν τοῖς χρηματισμοῖς Kai διακρίσεσιν εὐφημίας «τυγχάνοι:-
A J > ~ ~
καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποτυγχανόντων; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ πᾶσιν ἴσος γένοιο TO
4 nr Ν ,ὔ ΄
λόγῳ, καὶ μηδὲν ὑπερηφάνως μηδὲ τῇ περὶ σεαυτὸν ἰσχύι πράσσοις
“ Lal / , rs
κατὰ τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων. τοῦτο δὲ ποιήσεις τὴν διάταξιν βλέπων
Ν 8 a ας ᾿Ν ν ε ΄, a a. ὦ ἐν
τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ γὰρ ἱκετευόμενα συντελεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀξίοις,
ἰοὺ δὲ 3 ΄ Ἃ ὃ ΄, Ἃ , ΄, 6 Ν
τοῖς δὲ ἀποτυγχάνουσιν ἢ δι᾿ ὀνείρων ἢ πράξεων σημαίνεσθαι τὸ
βλαβερὸν αὐτοῖς: οὐ κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας οὐδὲ <KaTa> τὴν μεγαλω-
~ / “
σύνην τῆς ἰσχύος τύπτοντος αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιεικείᾳ χρωμένου τοῦ
“ > Ν Ν “a / ? ΄, Ν ten a
θεοῦ. Εὖ δὲ καὶ τοῦτον κατεπαινέσας ἡρώτα τὸν ἑξῆς Πῶς
A > an “ ͵ὔ try »” c Ν > > >
ἂν ἐν tats πολεμικαῖς χρείαις ἀήττητος εἴη; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ μὴ
Ν ε / a μὲ Ν a , 3 Ν Ν Ν
πεποιθὼς ὑπάρχοι τοῖς ὄχλοις μηδὲ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν: ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν
> a Ν ΄ ν Ν 3 Ν 3 “ 4, ’
ἐπικαλοῖτο διὰ πάντων, ἵνα τὰς ἐπιβολὰς αὐτῷ κατευθύνῃ δικαίως
/ 4 3 / Ν \ ων Ν σ
διεξάγοντι πάντα. Αποδεξάμενος δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν ἕτερον
Aa A “ ~ > “
ἠρώτα Πῶς av φοβερὸς εἴη τοῖς ἐχθροῖς; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ei τῇ τῶν
σ Ν ’ὔ “" ΄“ ’ ΕῚ ͵ ~
ὅπλων καὶ δυνάμεων παρασκευῇ πολλῇ χρώμενος «εἰδείη: ταῦτα

1 μετατιθεις]-τε B μετατιθης Αὖ 8 παντας P | διατηρει ΒΡΤΖ
-ροιη ACF | eavrw BPTZ (-το)] eavrov cett 4 πραξοι Καὶ 6 τουτο A |
ernpwra BT] emepwra cett | ομοιως B 7 εαὐτω] eavrov H om Z
10 κατασκευαζων P 12 διαρισεσιν Z*t διαιρεσιν ΖΒ | rvyxavw codd
omn 13 ισως BPT | γενοιο---σεαυτον (14)] om BPTZ 14 πραττεις P
πρασοις H* (σ altera suprascr) Καὶ 18 κατα 2°] om codd 19 avros GI
21 om ταις BPTZ | envy Z | ο BPTZKoorr rw cett 22 ὑπαρχοι K] vrap-
χοις HAGI umapxers BPTZ | οχλοις] οπλοις P 23 επικαλὴ B | επιβου-
Aas I 25 Tn] Tw T 26 οπλιων P | και δυναμεων] om Z και δυναμενων

G | εἰδείη ex conj] evn εἰ δε evn (over B) codd

15

25

®IAOKPATEI. 553

” eae , , \ \ ΄, a \
ovTa κενὰ ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον πρὸς TO συμπέρασμα δρᾶν τι: καὶ
Ν ε \ \ > Ν Ν >? ὃ "4 Ν “~ lA
yap ὁ θεὸς διδοὺς ἀνοχὰς: καὶ ἐνδεικνύμενος τὸν τῆς δυναστείας
, 3 : ΄ Υ / \ A SS
φόβον ἐγκατασκευάζει πάσῃ διανοίᾳ. Καὶ τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαι-
/ > Ν Ν 5 / 7 ’, Sea Ν Ν A xv
νέσας εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον Ti κάλλιστον αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸ ζῇν av

4 > - »” Ν , 7 Ν / “~ ε ,
εἴη; κακεῖνος ἔφη To γινώσκειν ὅτι θεὸς δυναστεύει τῶν ἁπάντων,
a /
kal ἐπὶ τῶν καλλίστων πράξεων οὐκ αὐτοὶ κατευθύνομεν τὰ βουλευ-
΄ \ τ Aa’ ΄ \ A ; >
θέντα: θεὸς δὲ τελειοῖ τὰ πάντων καὶ καθηγεῖται δυναστεύων. ἜἜπι-
΄, \ \ ΄ A , \ “ 58 IA ε a
φωνήσας δὲ καὶ τούτῳ καλῶς λέγειν τὸν ἕτερον ἠρώτα Πώς av
7 a 4 “a
ἀκέραια συντηρήσας ἅπαντα τοῖς ἐγγόνοις τὴν αὐτὴν παραδιδοῖ
Χ “- 5 ΄,
διάθεσιν <émi τέλει-:-; 86 δὲ εἶπεν Εὐχόμενος ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν $C
> Q > / , Ν Ν / / A “
ἀγαθὰς ἐπινοίας λαμβάνειν πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα πράσσεσθαι, καὶ τοῖς
> , δὰ , X\ > x ‘ 6 ral ὃ ͵7ὔ δὲ “
ἐγγόνοις παρακελευόμενος μὴ ἐκπλήττεσθαι τῇ δόξῃ μηδὲ τῷ
, Ν Ν = Ν / a Ν > ten \
πλούτῳ: θεὸν yap εἶναι τὸν χαριζόμενον ταῦτα, Kai od δι ἑαυτοὺς
Ε] ’
ἔχειν τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἁπάντων. Ἐπιμαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτοις
a val / a \
Tov peta ταῦτα ἐπυνθάνετο Πῶς av τὰ συμβαίνοντα μετρίως
- / iv 7 4
φέροι; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφησεν Hi πρόληψιν λαμβάνοις, ὅτι γέγοναν
A“ - 4 A A A
ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντες ἄνθρωποι μετασχεῖν τῶν μεγίστων κακών,
A » Υ > “
ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἀγαθών" καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπον ὄντα τούτων ἀμιγῆ
\ ‘
γενέσθαι. 6 θεὸς δὲ τὴν εὐψυχίαν δίδωσιν, ὃν ἱκετεύειν avay-
a A A > 7
καῖον. Φιλοφρονηθεὶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς εἶπεν ἅπαντας
> , > / Ν ΕΙΣ A ,ὔ QA = »” ΄
ἀποφαίνεσθαι: ἐπερωτήσας δὲ ἔτι ἕνα καταλήξω τὸ νῦν ἔχον, ἵνα
Ν Ν Ν , ΄ ee 4 3 ἐδ Aa
Kal πρὸς TO τέρπεσθαι τραπέντες ἡδέως διεξάγωμεν. ἐν δὲ ταῖς
\ cal aA een < 7, Ν Ν “ ~ ε ~ , ,
μετὰ ταῦτα e€ ἑξῆς ἡμέραις Kal παρὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἑξῆς μαθήσομαί
, 3 2 > / Ν δ ,ὕ Zz > 6 3 ἢ ε
τι πλέον. εἶτ᾽ ἐπηρώτα τὸν avdpa Τί πέρας ἀνδρείας ἐστίν; ὃ
δὲ εἶπεν Εἰ τὸ βουλευθὲν ὀρθῶς ἐν ταῖς τῶν κινδύνων πράξεσιν
A Ἁ “ “~ “
ἐπιτελοῖτο κατὰ πρόθεσιν. τελειοῦται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα σοι
lal [9] / ΕἸ ΄ὔ
καλῶς βουλευομένῳ, βασιλεῦ, συμφερόντως. ὁ ᾿Επιφωνησάντων § Jos
Ἢ ΄, x , , \ Ἢ , 3 ε
δὲ πάντων καὶ κρότῳ σημηναμένων πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους εἶπεν ὃ
‘ 2 2\-F ν᾿ a , ” , \
βασιλεὺς (οὐκ ὀλίγοι yap παρῆσαν τούτοις) Οἴομαι διαφέρειν τοὺς
8 om και ΒΡΤΖ | τουτο Z 9 exyovos ABT 10 επιτελειν ΒΖ θ᾽ HKAGIB
emiredn T επιτελοι cett 12 exyovos AB*T 13 om ov B 14 απαν- ©PTZ Jos
των] pr των H | rourous I 16 φερει P | λαμβανεις BT | yeyovacow BPT
18 αγαθων] pr των BT 19 om de C 20 rouvrw P 21 αποκρινεσθαι
B | om δὲς 23 nuepas GI | εξης 2°] om BPTZ 24 εἰτ ewnpwra

BCTZ (era BC)] ect erepwra cett 27 βουλευομενω BT] βουλομενω cett
28 σημαναμενων CTZ 29 ολιγοις Z

554 APISTEAS

ΝΜ A “- A 4
ἄνδρας ἀρετῇ, καὶ συνιέναι πλεῖον᾽ οἵτινες ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ τοιαύτας
/ 4 ΄ > Ν
ἐρωτήσεις λαμβάνοντες, ὡς δέον ἐστὶν ἀποκέκρινται, πάντες ἀπὸ
cal n / Ν ‘\ ’ὔ / Ν ε
θεοῦ τοῦ λόγου τὴν καταρχὴν ποιούμενο. Μενέδημος δὲ 6
> \ ΄ > A , \ 9
Ἐρετριεὺς φιλόσοφος εἶπε Nai, βασιλεῦ: προνοίᾳ yap τῶν ὅλων
ων “ A / /
διοικουμένων, καὶ ὑπειληφότων ὀρθῶς τοῦτο, ὅτι θεόκτιστόν ἐστιν 5
4 3 -“ “ ᾿ Ν ΄ Ν > Ν
ἄνθρωπος, ἀκολουθεῖ πᾶσαν δυναστείαν καὶ λόγου καλλονὴν ἀπὸ
“ -“ 4 \
θεοῦ κατάρχεσθαι. τοῦ δὲ βασιλέως ἐπινεύσαντος τὰ περὶ τούτων
wy ~
S Jos ἔληξεν: ἐτράπησαν δὲ πρὸς εὐφροσύνην. ἐπιλαβούσης δὲ τῆς
/ Ν
ἑσπέρας τὸ συμπόσιον ἐλύθη.
TH δὲ \ nw x. Ἀ QA 3 Ν ὃ ’ὔ ἕ ἈΝ -“
Ἢ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διαταξιν τὰ τῆς τὸ
Ω , Ν ,ὕ 3 tal Ν Ν Ἄν ἐν ε
αναπτώσεως καὶ συμποσίας ἐπετελεῖτο. καθὸ δὲ ἐνόμιζεν ὃ
δ ἐνῇ > Χ Ν ΄, ΄ a > A
βασιλεὺς εὔκαιρον εἶναι πρὸς τὸ πυνθάνεσθαί τι τῶν ἀνδρῶν,
3 , \ “ “ a / ε / Ν
ἐπηρωτα τοὺς ἑξῆς τῶν ἀποκεκριμένων τῇ προτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ. πρὸς
Ν ε id eB Ν ’, “a Νῃ Ν >
τὸν ἑνδέκατον δὲ ἤρξατο τὴν κοινολογίαν ποιεῖσθαι (δέκα yap ἦσαν
> 7 A a δ 4 a“
ol ἠρωτημένοι TH προτέρᾳ). σιγῆς δὲ γενομένης ἐπυνθάνετο Ids 15
x ΄ ΄ ‘ ᾿ς Ὁ Ν ε Ν ee. 2 4
av πλούσιος διαμένοι; βραχὺ δὲ ἐπισχὼν ὁ τὴν ἐρώτησιν ἐκδεχό-
> > Ν ᾿ ,ὔ a > A ἈΝ > εν /
μενος εἶπεν Εἰ μηδὲν ἀνάξιον τῆς ἀρχῆς μηδὲ ἀσελγὲς πράσσοι,
/ a Ν ε ,ὔ
μηδὲ δαπάνῃ εἰς τὰ κενὰ καὶ μάταια συντελοῖ, τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους
“ \ cal
εὐεργεσίᾳ πρὸς εὔνοιαν ἄγοι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ yap ὁ θεὸς πᾶσιν
A - an a“ >
αἴτιος ἀγαθῶν ἐστιν, ᾧ κατακολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον. ἔπαι- 2
A “ xX Ν 5 ΄
νέσας δὲ ὃ βασιλεὺς τοῦτον ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα Πῶς ἂν τὴν ἀλήθειαν
“- “ ΄ bid /
duarnpot; 6 δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο ἀπεκρίθη Τινώσκων ὅτι μεγάλην
A lal n \ Lal
αἰσχύνην ἐπιφέρει τὸ ψεῦδος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον

τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν: ἐξουσίαν γὰρ ἔχοντες ὃ βούλονται πράσσειν, τίνος
ἕνεκεν ἂν ψεύσαιντο; προσλαμβάνειν δὲ δεῖ τοῦτό σε, βασιλεῦ, διότι 2
φιλαλήθης ὃ θεός ἐστιν. ᾿Αποδεξάμενος δὲ εὖ μάλα καὶ
τοῦτον ἐπιβλέψας εἶπεν Τί ἐστι σοφίας διδαχή; 6 δὲ ἕτερος

HKAGIB 3 om Tov B | Μενεδιμος BT Bevednuos Z | om δὲ BT 8 de 1° B] be
CPTZ Jos σὰ cett | προς euppoo.—rn de (10)] om A 13 rpwrn Καὶ | mpos τον evdex.—
mpotepa (15) om Bt ins Bs 15 om οἱ KB | προτερα] mporepea A*

(-paca Ac) + quepa Bm 16 διαμελλοι P 18 συντελει BCT συντελη
Z ἀσυντελει P 19 ευεργεσια7- de B | ayer BT 21 ernpwra BT] επε-

pwra cett 22 diarnporn BACT 23 επιῴφερει KB] επιῴφεροι cett
24 εξουσιαν---πρασσειν] om C | 0] wy B 25 av evexev Z | προσλαμβανειν
BT] προλαμβανειν cett | σε] σοι A 26 om o Geos P 27 post τοῦτον

fort emt Tov μετ avrov vel aliquid simile excidit

Io

15

20

®IAOKPATEI. 555

/ / “ \ Ν nan
ἀπεφήνατο Καθὼς οὐ βούλει σεαυτῷ τὰ κακὰ παρεῖναι, μέτοχος δὲ
A A A Ἂ
τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπάρχειν ἁπάντων, εἰ πράσσοις τοῦτο πρὸς τοὺς ὑὕποτε-
\ \ x n
ταγμένους καὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας" εἰ τοὺς καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς τῶν
3 4 > / paar Ν Ν «ε Ν Ν > 4
ἀνθρώπων ἐπιεικέστερον νουθετοῖς" Kat yap ὃ θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους
oe , » > Ν a » Ἂν
ἅπαντας ἐπιεικείᾳ αἀγει. Ἐπαινέσας αὐτὸν τῷ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν
> a“ a a A ε
εἶπε Πῶς dv φιλάνθρωπος εἴη; κἀκεῖνος ἔφη Θεωρῶν ὡς ἐν
“A Ν / Vg Y ¢ Ν lal τς
πολλῷ χρόνῳ καὶ κακοπαθείαις μεγίσταις αὔξει τε καὶ γεννᾶται τὸ
A > , / ᾿- id ” 3 / an / » 3) ὟΣ
τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος" ὅθεν οὔτε εὐκόπως δεῖ κολάζειν, οὔτε αἰκίαις
΄, ΄, “ Ν a > / a > 3907 ‘\
περιβάλλειν: γινώσκων ὅτι τὸ τών ἀνθρώπων ζῇν ἐν ὀδύναις τε καὶ
nan > “ Ν
τιμωρίαις καθέστηκεν. ἐπινοῶν οὖν ἕκαστα πρὸς τὸν ἔλεον τραπήσῃ:"
Ν , ᾿ς la
καὶ yap ὃ θεὸς ἐλεήμων ἐστίν. ᾿Αποδεξάμενος δὲ τοῦτον
> / “ \ Lee ae Ἂς r / > ᾽ὔ ,ὔ ͵7ὕ
ἐπυνθάνετο τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς Τίς ἀναγκαιότατος τρόπος βασιλείας ;
Ν “ > Ν / \ fs lal
Τὸ συντηρεῖν, εἶπεν, αὑτὸν ἀδωροδόκητον, Kal νήφειν τὸ πλεῖον μέρος
A , , a Ν \ ’, a
τοῦ βίου, καὶ δικαιοσύνην προτιμᾶν, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους φιλοποιεῖ-
Ν Ve / > /
σθαι: καὶ yap ὁ θεὸς φιλοδίκαιός ἐστιν. Ἐπισημῆήνας καὶ
“ A \ o 5S / Ν “ 3 if. > Ν ,
τοῦτον πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Τί τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ κατάστημα;
an Ν / 4 / x “
ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Τὸ διαλαμβάνειν ὅτι πάντα διαπαντὸς ὃ θεὸς ἐνεργεῖ
\ , \ 53... Ἃ Ψ * U Ἃ Ν 2 4
Kal γινώσκει, καὶ οὐθὲν ἂν λάθοι adikov ποιήσας ἢ κακὸν ἐργασά-
» ε \ \ > AN “ , «“ \
μενος avOpwros ws yap θεὸς εὐεργετεῖ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον, οὕτως Kal
σὺ μιμούμενος ἀπρόσκοπος ἂν εἴης ᾿Επιφωνήσας δὲ τού
μιμούμ ρόσκοπος ἂν εἴης. ἥσας δὲ τούτῳ
Ν \ oa > , eo aA , ͵ὔ
πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Τίς ὅρος τοῦ βασιλεύειν ἐστίν; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Τὸ
καλ a a ε a \ \ A x / x A ὃ Lat ch /
ὥς ἄρχειν ἑαυτοῦ, Kal μὴ τῷ πλούτῳ καὶ TH δόξῃ φερόμενον
c , \ ΝΜ / ΕῚ θ - 5 n / /
ὑπερήφανον καὶ ἀσχημόν τι ἐπιθυμῆσαι, εἰ καλῶς λογίζοιο. πάντα

ab

, / «ε > / ͵ « \ Ngo: le > Ν..9 /
yap σοι πάρεστιν Tws ovdevt. ὁ θεὸς δὲ ἀπροσδεής ἐστι καὶ ἐπιεικής.

1 απεφηνατο] εἰπε B απεκρινατο P | βουλὴ HGCZ | om tra BCTZ HKAGIB
B CREZ

2 πρασσεις KBCP 2f auapr. και Tous vroreray. P 3 om Tous 19

4 νουθετεις KBPT 6 om αν Z* ins Zoorr 7 om Te I 8 ouTe 1°]
ovde Z | αἰκίαις (cf 3 Macc 6. 26) BT]. αἰτίαις HKCPZ αἰτίας GIA
9 tov avov HKB | om τε KB 11 δε] Ἐκαι GI 12 om εἐπυνθανετο
Kt ins post e&s K™S | ro] τον K |ἅβασιλειας]) pr τῆς P 13 εαὐτον P
14 φιλοπονεισθαι H 16 om τον BT | om τῆς B| katacrnua εστιν Z
17 om δε K | διαπαντος] - οτι K | evepyer και γινωσκει o Oo P 19 Geos]

proP|omodo P 20 τουτον CPZ 22 eaurov]+ και βασιλευειν ἐστι K
23 υπερηφανον]-Ἐτι BT*? (ras 2 litt) |om τὶ B | εἐπιθυμησαι P] εννοησα-
σθαι B επινοησαιο Z επιθυμησαιο cett 24 ws ovdev codd] fort legendum
οσων deov

HKAGIB
CPTZ

556 APISTEAS

Ν , ,ὔ Ε > / ἈΝ \ an 3 , - ἂν
καὶ σύ, καθόσον ἄνθρωπος, ἐννόει, καὶ μὴ πολλῶν ὀρέγου, τῶν δὲ
ε A \ \ , ΄ de 9 ,
ἱκανῶν πρὸς τὸ βασιλεύειν. Κατεπαινέσας δὲ αὐτόν, ἐπηρώτα

lal “Ὁ / 3 an
τὸν ἕτερον Πώς ἂν τὰ κάλλιστα διαλογίζοιτο; ἀπεκρίθη δὲ ἐκεῖνος
Ei \ δί 4. SN \ B INA a Ν ζ Ν

i τὸ δίκαιον ἐπὶ παντὸς προβάλλοι συνεχώς, καὶ νομίζοι τὴν
3 4 ~ ~ ’ὔ’ > \ Ν ε Ν Ν nn
ἀδικίαν τοῦ ζῇν στέρησιν εἶναι: καὶ yap ὁ θεὸς διαπαντὸς τοῖς
δικαίοις ἀγαθὰ προσημαίνει μέγιστα. Τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαινέσας
ἫΝ Ν Ν εἐπκ veg a > te A — »” ε \ 7
εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἑξῆς Ids av ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις ἀτάραχος ein; ὃ δὲ ἔφη

,ὔ > , a / Ν > 4
Δυσαπολόγητον ἠρώτηκας πρᾶγμα. συναναφέρειν yap οὐ δυνάμεθα
3 ΄, A Ν \ Ψ ε , > Ν , > ’ὔ
ἐν τούτοις τοῖς κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον ἑαυτούς, ἀλλὰ περιεχόμεθα ἀλογίστῳ

Ν / > , / \ Ν Ν Ν 3. τὶν “
κατὰ «τάδε:- αἰσθήσει. πάσχομεν γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς
ε “ ΄
ὑποπίπτουσιν ὡς θεωρουμένοις" ἀλογιστοῦμεν δέ, καθόσον ὑπολαμ-

΄ κα ἃ Ψ, a ἊΝ ΄ Ἃ a) x ,

Bavopev καὶ ἐπὶ πέλαγος καὶ ἐν πλοίοις ἢ πολεῖν, ἢ πέτασθαι φερο-

/ Ν / 3 ε vs / Ν Lal 7 a <£ asf?

καὶ διαίρειν εἰ υς : ταῦ
ένους καὶ διαίρειν εἰς ἑτέρους τόπους, καὶ τοιαῦτα ἕτερα, Τ καὶ ὃ ταῦθ
ε δ᾽ ’ U Ν 7 ,
ὑπολαμβάνων μὴ καθεστάναιΐ. πλὴν ὅσον ἔμοιγε ἐφικτόν, οὕτω

, κ᾿ , 7, , A \ ᾷ, , ‘ ‘

διείληφα: κατὰ πάντα τρόπον σέ, βασιλεῦ, καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ
, / 9 “ ~ 7
πραττόμενα πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἐπανάγειν, ὅπως «ἑαυτῷ: συνιστορῇς; OTL
“-“ / - /
τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν συντηρῶν οὔτε χαρίζεσθαι προαιρῇ παρὰ λόγον, οὐδὲ
\ a / (5
ἐξουσίᾳ χρώμενος TO δίκαιον αἴρεις. ἐπὶ πλεῖον yap, ἐν οἷς ἕκαστος

΄ “ 2.8 .
πράγμασιν ἐγρηγορὼς τὴν διαγωγὴν ποιεῖται, καὶ καθ᾽ ὕπνον ἐν τοῖς

3 ro ε , ἈΝ ΕῚ Ν ” δ € Ν / Ν
αὐτοῖς ἡ διάνοια τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ἔχει, Tws det πάντα διαλογισμὸν

~ Ν
καὶ πρᾶξιν ἐπὶ τὰ κάλλιστα τρεπομένην κατευθύνει καὶ ἐγρηγορὼς

ἣν τὰ 9 Ν ‘ Ν . 9 , 3 > (0 Ρ

καὶ ἐν ὕπνῳ. διὸ καὶ περὶ σὲ διαπαντός ἐστιν εὐσταθεια. Κατ-
΄, Ν Ν “- 3 Ν Ν “ 3γπ Ν ‘\ /
ευὐφημήσας δὲ Kai τοῦτον εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον “Exel σὺ δέκατος

Ν 3 4 ” ε va 2 ΄ Ν Ν - /
Τὴν αποκρισιν EXELS, WS αν αποφηνῃ; προς TO δεῖπνον τραπησόμεθα.

3 om τα Β 4 εἰ] εἰς G | προβαλοι P προβαλλει C προβαλοις G προ-
βαλλοις I | νομιζει P 5 om του (nv Z 9 Tous vmvous P 10 rade]
τηδε HKAPT τι δὲ GICZ τα τηδε B (τα excurrit in mg sed prima manu) |
πασχωμεν GIP | om τὴν I 11 υπολαμβανομεν BCPT] υὑπολαμβανομενοι
cett 12 και 1°] om B| πολειν KGIBT] πωλειν HCPZ πλειν A | πετα-
σθαι] μας B 18 και ο ταυθ---βασιλεὺυ (15) om Bet ins in mg Βταδτ [97
om K ΤΟ P 14 υπολαμβανειν KGICPZ | καθισταναι I Locus perob-
scurus ῥκατα ταυθ υπολαμβανομεν καθεσταναι 15 tporov παντα Z | σε]
σοι KBT 16 cavrw] eavrov codd 17 om ro B 18 apes] avacpers
P αιρης Z epas A 19 ποιηται P| ἡ διανοια ev τοις avras BT 20 ws
de codd] Fortasse os δε vel os ὃ exer 21 κατευθυνεις ZOO 24 τραπη-
σωμεθα GICPZ

Leal

\

Io

15

20

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 557

3 v, , a x Χ Sele ε a / ε δὲ >
npwra δέ Πῶς av μηδὲν ἀνάξιον ἑαυτῶν πράσσοιμεν ; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν
3 , \ > \ A , \ \ ε , “
Ἐπίβλεπε διαπαντὸς εἰς τὴν σεαυτοῦ δόξαν καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχήν. ἵνα
, > ΄ x , Ν a , ¢ / =
τούτοις ἀκόλουθα καὶ λέγης καὶ διανοῇ, γινώσκων ὅτι πάντες ὧν
» Ν A Ν lal \ A 3 Ν 2 ,ὔ ’,
ἄρχεις περὶ σοῦ καὶ διανοοῦνται καὶ λαλοῦσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἐλάχιστόν
an an ~ \ ~
σε δεῖ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν φαίνεσθαι: τὸ yap πρόσωπον, <6 δέον αὐτοῖς:-
ς A an / / /
ἐστιν ὑποκρίνεσθαι, τοῦτο συνθεωροῦντες ἀκόλουθα πάντα πράσ-
3 ~ ~
gover σὺ δὲ οὐχ ὑπόκρισιν ἔχεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς βασιλεύεις, θεοῦ
’, las ε lal
δόντος σοι καταξίως τῶν τρόπων τὴν ἡγεμονίαν. Τοῦ δὲ
/ > / / Ν ΄ hE NY ,
βασιλέως εὖ para συγκροτήσαντος μετὰ φιλοφροσύνης ἐπὶ πλείονα
΄, Ν / nw
χρόνον, τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καθυπνοῦν παρεκάλουν. Kal τὰ μὲν πρὸς
ε a“ “ :
τούτους ws ἔληξεν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἑξῆς ἐτράπησαν τῆς συμποσίας
διάταξιν.
~~ , ~ ~ , 7 «ε
Τῇ δὲ ἐχομένῃ, τῆς αὐτῆς διατάξεως γενηθείσης, ὅτε καιρὸν ὑπε-
’ \ > An ΄ al na >
λάμβανεν ὃ βασιλεὺς εἶναι τοῦ πυνθάνεσθαί τι τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἠρώτα
Ν A A Ν Ν A ,
TOV πρῶτον τῶν ἀπολιπόντων πρὸς τὴν ἑξῆς ἐρώτησιν Tis ἐστιν
3 Ν 7 > A Qv ve A ε A \ \
ἀρχὴ κρατίστη; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Τὸ Kpatety ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μὴ συγκατα-
/ “ “ A \ > / Ἂς ον
φέρεσθαι ταῖς ὁρμαῖς. πᾶσι γὰρ ἀνθρώποις φυσικὸν εἶναι τὸ πρός
Ν , εὖ a Ν > a Tien Ν N Ν
τι τὴν διάνοιαν ῥέπειν: τοῖς μὲν οὖν πολλοῖς ἐπὶ τὰ βρωτὰ καὶ
\ Ν N ε \ seus > ΄, na \ A uN
ποτὰ Kal τὰς ἡδονὰς εἰκός ἐστι κεκλίσθαι, τοῖς δὲ βασιλεῦσιν ἐπὶ
7 ΄ \ \ A Ase , \ 9 A
χώρας κατάκτησιν, κατὰ TO τῆς δόξης μέγεθος: πλὴν ἐν πᾶσι
Ay a ,
μετριότης καλόν. ἃ δὲ ὃ θεὸς δίδωσι, ταῦτα λαμβάνων σύνεχε:
~ > > “ “ >
τῶν δ᾽ ἀνεφίκτων μὴ ἐπιθύμει. Τοῖς δὲ ῥηθεῖσιν ἀρεσθεὶς
, > a X 5 , Ἢ
πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη φθόνου; διαλιπὼν δὲ
3 ων » “ > J 7 ε Ν “ / le
ἐκεῖνος ἔφη Πρῶτον εἰ νοήσαι, ὅτι ὃ θεὸς πᾶσι pepiler δόξαν τε

Ἂς , / “ ~ Ν 3 Ν \ ε , 3
και πλούτου μέγεθος τοις βασιλεῦσι, και οὐδεὶς πέρι EAUTOV core

1 avtwy CZ 3 Nevers PZ 5 dec Β] δια cett | 0 deov αὐτοῖς con}
Schmidt] οὐδὲ αὐτο (αυτος B) codd 6 τουτο] -- yap GI | ovr (in συνθεω-
ρουντες) sup lin T? 8 τον τροπον Zt ηἡγεμονειαν H 10 καθυπνουντας
C | παρεκ. καθ. Z 11 τουτοις Z | εἐληξεν corr Schmidt] ἐλεξεν codd | ere]
+rovrots (post ras) Z | ws εληξεν---εχομενὴ (13))om H 18 ὑπελαβεν CTZ
14 npwra ex conj] πρωτα codd (ernpwra Z°°') 15 των απολιποντων
(-λειπ. P)] τον ἀπολιποντα BCTZ -ηγε B | ερωτησιν] - εφηὴ P 18 om
τὴν dav. Z| βρωματα P 19 κεκλεισθαι PB* vid 20 om τὸ] C

a
21 om ταυτα P | cuvexe λαμβανων B* (corr B') 23 πως] ws Z | διαλει-
πων 1 24 εἰ νοησαις Z°%P (-ησσ.) ἐεννοησας B 25 πλουτον HGI

HKAGIB
CPTZ

558 APISTEAS

/ \ “ an
βασιλεύς: πάντες yap θέλουσι μετασχεῖν ταύτης τῆς δόξης, ἀλλ᾽ od
δύ Ὲ 6 lal ΄ ΕἸ δό > ᾽ὔ Ν Ν ΝΜ
ὕνανται: θεοῦ γάρ ἐστι δόμα. Ezawéoas δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα
Ἂς / ΕῚ / Ν “ -“ xa , ~ > ral
διὰ πλειόνων ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἕτερον Ids av καταφρονοίη τῶν ἐχθρῶν ;
ε > > Ν 3
6 δὲ εἶπεν Ησκηκὼς πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εὔνοιαν καὶ κατεργα-
΄ὔ ΄, φ 5 \ x μὲ Ξ Ν Ν a Ν
σάμενος φιλίας, λόγον οὐθενὸς ἂν ἔχοις" τὸ δὲ κεχαριτῶσθαι πρὸς 5
, > / Ν A “ 3 ve! Ἀ -“ a 3 @£
πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ καλὸν δώρον εἰληφέναι παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι
’ὔ / Ν "9 Ν ε Lal 3 /,
κράτιστον. Συναινέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἑξῆς ἐκέλευσεν
> A Ν δ τῆς > / a Ἅ ΄ ΄ Φ
ἀποκριθῆναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών Πῶς ἂν δοξαζόμενος διαμένοι ; εἶπε
δέ Τῇ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χά ὸ ὺς ἀλλ δοτικὸς ὦ
Ἢ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χάρισι πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους μεταδοτικὸς ὧν
Ν ‘ 9, a i 3 / / 9 Ν \
καὶ μεγαλομερὴς οὐδέποτ᾽ av ἀπολίποι δόξης: ἵνα δὲ τὰ προειρη- το
/ / Ν Ν 3 lal ΄,ὔ >
μένα σοι διαμένῃ, τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διαπαντός. Εὐφη-
/ δὲ “ 7 3 / ΄- Cal / >
μήσας δὲ τοῦτον ἕτερον ἠρώτα Ios twa det φιλότιμον εἶναι;
> ~ ψ ΎΝΝ Ν. \ ~ ΕἾ ἘΠ ΩΝ »” , 7
ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Πρὸς τοὺς φιλικῶς ἔχοντας ἡμῖν οἴονται TaVTES OTL
x ΄ Pet 2 ine Ke , X δ 3 a
πρὸς τούτους déov' ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὑπολαμβάνω, πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιδοξοῦντας
φιλοτιμίαν δεῖν χαριστικὴν ἔχειν, ἵνα τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ μετάγωμεν 15
3 Ν ἌΡ. Ν θη ‘ » ε - A Ν Ν ‘
αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ καθῆκον Kal συμφέρον ἑαυτοῖς. δεῖ δὲ τὸν θεὸν
7 ~ A
λιτανεύειν, ἵνα ταῦτ᾽ émiteAntar’ τὰς γὰρ ἁπάντων διανοίας
Pe > De 4 δὲ ᾽’ Ν 7 ΕῚ Ψ'
κρατεῖ. υνομολογήσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἕκτον ἐκέλευσεν
/ / al A >
ἀποφήνασθαι πυνθανόμενος Τίσι δεῖ χαρίζεσθαι; ἐκεῖνος ὃ
5 Θ ΤᾺΣ A ὃ / ἈΝ Ν ε Ν ’ὔ 2 Ν
ἀπεκρίθη Τονεῦσι διαπαντός, καὶ γὰρ ὃ θεὸς πεποίηται ἐντολὴν 20
.
,ὔ - ~ 4 an »"
μεγίστην περὶ τῆς τῶν γονέων τιμῆς. ἑπομένως δὲ τὴν τῶν φίλων
/ ~ ΄
ἐγκρίνει διάθεσιν, προσονομάσας ἴσον τῆ ΨΥχῆ τὸν φίλον. σὺ
᾿ an An σ > / 5 / Ν ε Ν
δὲ καλῶς ποιεῖς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς φιλίαν πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καθ-
A » δὲ Ν A 3 θά ‘ A
LOT OV. Παρακαλέσας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἐπυνθάνετο καὶ τοῦ
a ΄ὕ = ,
μετέπειτα Τί καλλονῆς ἀξιόν ἐστιν; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν Εὐσέβεια. καὶ 5

‘\ 9 ΄’ 4 > 4 Ν Ν ὃ Ν 3 A
yap αὕτη καλλονὴ Tis ἐστι πρωτεύουσα. TO δὲ δυνατὸν αὐτῆς

22 Deut 13°
HKAGIB 2 δυναντ av Z 5 φιλιαν Z 6 om και GI 8 εἰπων εἰπεν GIC
CPTZ eras Z πως) ws Z 9 προμήθεια K | μεταδοτ. wy προς Tous addous B

10 απολειποι P 11 διαμενοι A 12 de sup lin scr Ζ ἃ 18 ovov rar]
οιον και Καὶ 15 δει BP | exew] εἰναι B | τροπω] προσωπῳ CZ 17 em-

τελειται C 18 συνομολογησασθαι P et (δε omisso) Z* 19 om 6Z
20 απεκριθη] eve Z 21 eopuevos P 22 eyxpwew Z 23 προς eavrov |
eauTw P 24 και 1°] om B 26 om τις PZ | προτερευουσα H προτευουσα

B a
GI | eorw avrns B* (corr B*)

1το

15

20

25

®IAOKPATEI. 559

2 3 ΄ ε 9 Ν 6 A 56 3 Ae. Μ Ἃ \ \ / ,
ἐστιν ἀγάπη" αὕτη yap θεοῦ δόσις ἐστίν᾽ ἣν Kal σὺ κέκτησαι πάντα
A > rs
περιέχων ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ ayaba. Aiav δὲ φιλοφρόνως ἐπικρο-
Ὁ -“ Δ A -“
τήσας εἶπε πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον Πῶς ἂν πταίσας πάλιν τῆς αὐτῆς
/ Q 7 ε Ν Μ Α, Ν | 4 τ “-“ A
κρατήσαι δόξης; ὃ δὲ ἔφη Σὲ μὲν od δυνατόν ἐστι πταῖσαι, πᾶσι
\ / 3 a a
yap χάριτας ἔσπαρκας, at βλαστάνουσιν εὔνοιαν, 7 τὰ μέγιστα τῶν
9 4, 4 \ / 3 / > /
ὅπλων κατισχύουσα περιλαμβάνει τὴν μεγίστην ἀσφάλειαν" εἰ δέ
# > > e / 3 4 Ἂς A 4 3 Ν
τινες πταίουσιν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς πταίουσιν, οὐκέτι χρὴ ταῦτα πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ
φιλίαν κατακτησαμένους δικαιοπραγεῖν. θεοῦ δὲ δῶρον ἀγαθῶν
3 4 - . Ν ad 3 », Ν Ν ΄
ἐργάτην εἶναι καὶ μὴ τῶν ἐναντίων. Συναρεσθεὶς δὲ τούτοις
Ν Ν “ > A x > Ν / ΄ ε Ἂς εν 46 9
πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον εἶπε Ilws av ἐκτὸς γένοιτο λύπης ; ὃ δὲ ἔφησεν Ei
’ 3 “ ~ a
μηδένα βλάπτοι, πάντας δὲ ὠφελοῖ, TH δικαιοσύνῃ κατακολουθῶν᾽
fan Ν 2 ,ὔ ,
τοὺς yap ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς καρποὺς ἀλυπίαν κατασκευάζειν. ἱκετεύειν δὲ
7 ‘\ Ν ἈΝ ’, ε ~
τὸν θεόν, ἵνα μὴ τὰ παρὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἡμῶν ἀνακύπτοντα
, / Ν es / / \ / \ lal \ \
βλάπτῃ, λέγω δὴ οἷον θάνατοί τε καὶ νόσοι καὶ λῦπαι Kal τὰ
A ΓΝ" Ν Ν 3 a a ’, ϑνχ xv
τοιαῦτα. «αὐτῷ- δὲ σοὶ εὐσεβεῖ καθεστῶτι τούτων οὐδὲν av
, nw XV Ν “ ΕἸ 7 Ν ΄ 3 /
προσέλθοι. Καλώς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἐπαινέσας τὸν δέκατον ἠρώτα
> \ a \ / a
Ti μέγιστόν ἐστι δόξης; ὁ δὲ εἶπε TO τιμᾶν τὸν θεόν' τοῦτο δ᾽
- 4,
ἐστὶν od δώροις οὐδὲ θυσίαις, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς καθαρότητι καὶ διαλήψεως
lal aA / Aa
ὁσίας, καθὼς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα κατασκευάζεται καὶ διοικεῖται
Ἀ Ν > a A n « Ν \ a Ν ,ὔ -
κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν᾽ ἣν καὶ σὺ διατελεῖς ἔχων γνώμην, 7
la A “ \ ἴω /
πάρεστι σημειοῦσθαι πᾶσιν ἐκ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ συντετελεσμένων Kal
,ὔ Ν ΄ δὲ Pe , 3 Ν ε
συντελουμένων. Μετὰ μείζονος δὲ φωνῆς πάντας αὐτοὺς ὁ
> / Ν 7 “ /
βασιλεὺς noraleto καὶ παρεκάλει, συνεπιφωνούντων τῶν παρόντων,
΄, Ὗ a , \ \ A > A \ a ,
μάλιστα δὲ τῶν φιλοσόφων. καὶ yap ταῖς ἀγωγαῖς Kai τῷ λόγῳ
΄, “ > ε xX Ν a Ν
πολὺ προέχοντες αὐτών ἦσαν, ὡς ἂν ἀπὸ θεοῦ τὴν καταρχὴν ποιού-
A \ Ν “-“ A
μενοι. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὃ βασιλεὺς εἰς TO φιλοφρονεῖσθαι προῆλθε
διὰ τῶν προπόσεων.

1 yap] δε B | θῦ δοσις ΒΟΡΤΊ θεοδοσιος cett 2 αὐτὴ] eautn Καὶ avrw
B* εαυτω B! txt cett 3 τῆς αυτης παλιν P 5 εσπερκας HA | ευνοιαν
+e. de τινες πταιουσιν ep ots πταιουσι K* (del rubricator) 8 κτησα-

μενους BT | ayabov CT*Z 9 συναρκεσθεις B 10 εφησεν] edn AP
11 βλαπτοι] λυπειται Z“'4 (fin ex corr) | ὠῴφελει KT οφελοιη P 12 avrovs
K 13 om ta KBCTZ 14 βλαπτοι CPZ | λεγω δὴ (δε Z)] om P| om
re P 168 rovavra δε σοι codd (cum lacuna post roavra BC) avrw inserui |
αὐτω---καθεστωτι] evoeBer de gor οντι P 19 καθως---κατα (20)] om
HKAGI 22 de μειζονος Z 25 mpocexovtes BZ | avrw B* | noay P]
om cett 27 προποσεων BT Η “91 πραιποσιτων PK προποσετων cett

HKAGIB
CPZ

HKAGIB
CPTZ

560 APISTEAS

Τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ τῆς διατάξεως τοῦ συμποσίου
/ A ” > ’ A a ‘ esa > , ,
γενομένης, καθὼς εὔκαιρον ἐγένετο τῷ βασιλεῖ, τοὺς ἑξῆς ἡρώτα τῶν
προαποκεκριμένων, εἶπε δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ Τὸ φρονεῖν εἰ διδακτόν ἐ ;
ρ ριμένων, ἐ τῷ πρώτῳ To φρονεῖν εἰ διδακτὸν ἐστιν ;
a > > a > 4 Ν , / > /
ὃς δ᾽ εἶπε Ψυχῆς ἐστι κατασκευή, διὰ θείας δυνάμεως ἐπιδέχεσθαι
a Ν “ > ΄ Ν 3 ΄ /
πᾶν τὸ καλόν, ἀποστρέφεσθαι δὲ τἀναντία. Συνομολογήσας
> /, nw
δὲ τὸν ἐχόμενον ἠρώτα Ti πρὸς ὑγείαν μάλιστα συντείνει; ἐκεῖνος
ee ’ / Ν 3 » [οὐ ἮΝ Ἂς Ν
δὲ ἔφη Σωφροσύνη: ταύτης δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τυχεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ θεὸς κατα-
σκευάσῃ τὴν διάνοιαν εἰς τοῦτο. Παρακαλέσας δὲ τοῦτον πρὸς
Ἀ 7 μὴ TL ”~ Ἃ a) Ν ἀξί 3 ὃ ΄ / Ω «Δ δὲ
τὸν ἕτερον ἔφη Ilws av γονεῦσι τὰς ἀξίας αποόφη χάριτας; ὃς ὃὲ
μὲ Ν > \ rf ἴω > > 3, 3 Ν Ν A
εἶπε Μηδὲν αὐτοὺς λυπήσας" τοῦτο δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν, εἰ μὴ θεὸς τῆς δια-
΄ὔ ε Ν / Ν Ν ΄ ’, Ν
νοίας ἤγεμων γένοιτο πρὸς τὰ κάλλιστα. Προσεπινεύσας δὲ
\ eLa >? , A x / ΕΙΣ 5 5 lal ἵν >
τούτῳ τὸν ἑξῆς ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν φιλήκοος εἴη; ἐκεῖνος δὲ εἶπε Δια-
μὲ ΄ bd x ‘\
λαμβάνων ὅτι πάντα συμφέρει γινώσκειν, ὅπως ἂν πρὸς τὰ συμ-
" > an
Baivovra ἐκλεγόμενός τι τῶν ἠκροαμένων ἀνθυποτιθεὶς πρὸς τὰ TOV
an x 3 4 ! \ / “ “ 3 > ,
καιρῶν Τἂν ἀντιπράσσηταιϊ, σὺν χειραγωγίᾳ θεοῦ" τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστίν,
ε »“»"ἭἬ / / ε > > lal “ ‘+. > ,
αἱ τῶν πράξεων τελειώσεις UT αὐτοῦ. Τοῦτον δὲ ἐπαινέσας
a. Ν 4 > “~ xX θὲ / / \ cal
πρὸς Tov ἕτερον εἶπε Ilws av μηθὲν παράνομον πράσσοι; πρὸς τοῦτο
» / a Ἂς 3 , ε Ν δ “ ,
ἔφησε Τινώσκων ὅτι τὰς ἐπινοίας ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκε Tots νομοθετήσασι
Ν Ν 4 6 \ ’ “ 3 θ , 5 ros 6 Υ
πρὸς τὸ σώζεσθαι τοὺς βίους τῶν avlpwrwv, ἀκόλουθος εἴης
a > / \
av αὐτοῖς. Αποδεξάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν πρὸς ἕτερον εἶπε Tis
3 / / > / ε Ἀν. 8ι ΄ ? Ν “ /
ὠφέλεια συγγενείας ἐστίν; ὃ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Ἐὰν τοῖς συμβαίνουσι
a cal ' ~
νομίζωμεν ἀτυχοῦσι μὲν ἐλαττοῦσθαι, καὶ κακοπαθῶμεν ὡς αὐτοί,
»΄, ’
φαίνεται τὸ συγγενὲς ὅσον ἰσχῦόν ἐστι--- τελουμένων δὲ τούτων καὶ
“ ε ᾿Α Ξ Ν Ν
δόξα καὶ προκοπὴ παρὰ τοῖς τοιούτοις ὑπάρξει τὸ γὰρ συγγενὲς
2 γενομενου BT | rous] τοις I 3 αποκεκριμενων T 4 δια] και P
6 exewo B* execvos Bt 7 εανἹ εἰ A | κατασκευασει HAGCZ* 8 om de
EBCPTZ 9 εἰπε Z| αποδων G αποδωση Z | yovevow atrodwyn Tas ak. xap.
B 10 λυπησας P] λυπησαι cett | της διανοιας ἡγεμὼν bis scripsit Καὶ
12 om αν C | evy] pr αν Z | διαλαμβανειν B 13 συμφερειν T 14 ανθυ-
ποτιθης T αντυποτιθεις GICZ 15 αν αντιπρασσηται] αντιπρασσηται (ἃ (αν
τι πρασσ.) IB txt (fort recte) cett | συγχειραγωγια A*GITZ | εστιν at] εστι
ka P 16 ἡ των mp. τελειωσις T* 17 mpacco παρα Tov vowov BCPTZ
18 δεδωκε P 19 ecyns] pr av BTZ* (post ras) 20 om αν BT | αὑτον]
τουτον P | erepov] pr τον HPZ 22 νομιζωμεν KA Bor T] νομιζομεν
cett | ατυχουσι KA BPT] ατυχωσι cett | ws avror BCoor Toor) ws avrov

PC*T* vid ws avrwy cett (? wravTws) 23 ocov—oavyyeves (24)] om Bet
ins ΒΡ | om καὶ P 24 υπαρχει GI | συγγενες BOT] ouvepyes cett

Io

15

20

®IAOKPATEI. 561

ΝΣ, / ΄ὔ ε > ε “ ὃ , Ν -“ \ δὲ
εὐνόως γινόμενον ὡς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ἀδιάλυτον πρὸς ἀπαντα---μετὰ δὲ
3 ’ Ν a “~ 3 ’, 3 Ν Ν ε ͵
εὐημερίας, μηδὲν προσδεῖσθαι τῶν ἐκείνων, ἀλλὰ -«θεὸν:- ἱκετεύειν,
’, » ἴω ε , Ν 3 te > 4
πάντα ἀγαθοποιεῖν. Ὡσαύτως δὲ ἐκείνοις ἀποδεξάμενος
’ ~ / 3 / 4
αὐτὸν ἄλλον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἀφοβία γίνεται; εἶπε δέ Συνιστορούσης
“ “a / Ν
τῆς διανοίας μηδὲν κακὸν πεπραχέναι, θεοῦ κατευθύνοντος εἰς τὸ
lal ΄ Ν
καλῶς ἅπαντα βουλεύεσθαι. Τούτῳ δὲ ἐπιφωνήσας πρὸς
ΕΣ nw x‘ , >
ἄλλον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν προχείρως ἔχοι τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν
“ ’, 4
Εἰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀτυχήματα διαπαντὸς ἐπιβλέποι" γινώσκων
- ε Ν > A \ > , ΘΟ Ὁ , > X
ὅτι ὃ θεὸς ἀφαιρεῖται τὰς εὐημερίας, ἑτέρους δὲ δοξάζων εἰς τὸ
A / ~ Ν Ν la) > / \
τιμᾶσθαι προαγει. Kadds δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἀποδεξάμενος τὸν
eg > 67 (λ % a Ἃ Ν 3 ε θ 4 de a \
ἑξῆς ἀποκριθῆναι παρεκάλει Ilws av μὴ εἰς ῥᾳθυμίαν, μηδὲ ἐπὶ τὰς
ε \ ,ὕ ε 7 , + 3 “ ΄
ἡδονὰς τρέποιτο; ὃ δέ Προχείρως ἔχων, εἶπεν, OTL μεγαλης
,ὔ / XN tal al 3 “ Ν > “ Ν
βασιλείας κατάρχει καὶ πολλῶν ὄχλων ἀφηγεῖται, καὶ οὐ δεῖ περὶ
[2 ͵ὕ ἧς , > mn Ν ye 5» fo , >
ἕτερόν τι τὴν διάνοιαν εἶναι, τῆς δὲ τούτων ἐπιμελείας φροντίζειν
“ « “ 3
θεὸν δὲ ἀξιοῦν, ὅπως μηθὲν ἐλλίπῃ τῶν καθηκόντων. Eza-
/ Ν \ a Ν ΄ 3 , a BI 3 4 Ν
νέσας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν δέκατον «ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν ἐπιγινώσκοι:- τοὺς
΄ \ Ν ἄς, οἷς ΄ ε ἂν 9 ΄ Ν a >
δόλῳ τινὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν πράσσοντας; ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο πρὸς τοῦτο Ei
a Ν 3 Ν 3 / Ss \ Ν > / ΄
παρατηροῖτο τὴν ἀγωγὴν ἐλευθέριον οὖσαν, καὶ τὴν εὐταξίαν διαμέ-
νουσαν ἐν τοῖς ἀσπασμοῖς καὶ συμβουλίαις καὶ τῇ λοιπῇ συνανα-
στροφῇ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ, καὶ μηθὲν ὑπερτείνοντας τοῦ δέοντος ἐν ταῖς
’ὔ \ lad Lal an εἶ Ἂς 3 ΄, Ν Ν
φιλοφρονήσεσι καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἀγωγήν. θεὸς δὲ
Ν ΄ » lal ‘ ΄
τὴν διάνοιαν --ἀξει-:-- σοι, βασιλεῦ, πρὸς τὰ κάλλιστα. Συγ-
/ ΝΜ Ν -“ ’,
κροτήσας πάντας T ἐπαινέσας κατ᾽ ὄνομα, καὶ τῶν παρόντων ταὐτὰ

, an % Ν / > ΄
ποιούντων, ἐπὶ τὸ μέλπειν ἐτράπησαν.

1 διαλυτον Ζ 2 @eov con} Wendland] deov codd 3 us in exervors
sup ras T 4 πως ex orws ΤῊ | om εἰπε δὲ Καὶ 6 amavtas G | rovro

a

Ρ 7 εχη Tov ibs λογον προχειρως B | exer CZ 8 επιβλεπει BP
13 καταρχὴ Z| om οχλων B 15 ελλειπει B* ελλειπη Bor PT
16 epwra codd | αν επιγινωσκοι] επιγινωσκοι B επιγινωσκει (-ers Z) cett
17 dodov τινα A | rpaccovras προς avtov BT | προς τουτο (τουτον B*
Toor vid) amepynvato P 18 αὐταξιαν KI (ev sup ras H) 19 συμβου-
λιαις (-ειαις GICZ)] συμβουλιας HK (-ecas) A* 20 undev HKBP | υπερ-
τεινειν P vmeprewovr B* (as add BO") ὑπερτεινωνται Zr 22 diavoav]
δι ανοι C | εξει codd | συγκροτησας] + de B +ovv καὶ P cum praecedd conj
cett o de βασιλευς συγκροτησας edd pr 23 7 (re C)] om P | ra aura
psa &

3.5, 36

HKAGIB
CPTZ

HKAGIB
CPTZ

562 APISTEAS

na ἈΝ > , Ν Ν A > 7 Ν esa , >
Τῇ δὲ ἐχομένῃ τὸν καιρὸν λαβὼν ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἑξῆς Tis ἐστιν
> , / Ν ms £9. oF 5 Ὁ 3, s »” 4 A
ἀμέλεια μεγίστη; πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ ἔφη Εἰ τέκνων ἀφροντίς τις εἴη, καὶ μὴ
\ a na
κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀγαγεῖν «σπεύδοι-:-" εὐχόμεθα yap ἀεὶ πρὸς TOV
/ > 7 A σα “ «ες Ν “ 5 / 9 ~ ,ὔ
θεόν, οὐχ οὕτως περὶ ἑαυτῶν ὡς περὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων, ἵνα παρῇ πάντα
3 ae δ (9 / Ν S59 ~ , / a
αὐτοῖς τὰ ἀγαθά. τὸ δὲ ἐπιδεῖσθαι παιδείαν σωφροσύνης μετασχεῖν,
la / “ lal ει
θεοῦ δυνάμει τοῦτο γίνεται. Φήσας δὲ εὐλογεῖν ἄλλον
> ,ὔ -“ “ἡ ΄“
ἠρώτα Ilws ἂν φιλόπατρις εἴη; Προτιθέμενος, εἶπεν, ὅτι καλὸν ἐν
ἰδί Ν ζῇ ἈΝ X “ ε δὲ ἕ rs A Ν / /
ἰδίᾳ καὶ ζῇν καὶ τελευτᾷν. ἡ δὲ ξενία τοῖς μὲν πένησι καταφρόνησιν
> ΄ a Ἀν ’ὔ 5» ε Ν / 3 /
ἐργάζεται, τοῖς δὲ πλουσίοις ὄνειδος, ὡς διὰ κακίαν ἐκπεπτωκόσιν.
A > “ Ξ A a A
εὐεργετῶν οὖν ἅπαντας, καθὼς συνεχῶς τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιτελεῖς, θεοῦ διδόντος
» \ / / / / / Ν
σοὶ πρὸς πάντας χάριν, φιλόπατρις φανήσῃ. Τούτου δὲ
> ’ὔ΄ ~ Ἀ \ ε ~ 3 Fr ~ Xv ε ΄ /
ἀκούσας τοῦ κατὰ TO ἑξῆς ἐπυνθάνετο Πῶς <dv> ἁρμόσαι γυναικί;
, ~
«Γινώσκων; ὅτι μὲν θρασύ ἐστιν, ἔφη, τὸ θῆλυ γένος, καὶ δραστικὸν
35/3) ΝᾺ ΄’ A Ν ΄, ΔΤ ὁ Ν “
ἐφ᾽ ὃ βούλεται πρᾶγμα, καὶ μεταπίπτον εὐκόπως διὰ παραλογισμοῦ,
Ν ~ A ͵ὕ 3 / ͵ὔ 3 > Ν XV Ν ε Ν
καὶ τῇ φύσει κατεσκεύασται ἀσθενές" δέον δ᾽ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸ ὑγιὲς
χρῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ πρὸς ἔριν ἀντιπράσσειν. κατορθοῦται yap Bios,
τὰ ε a 95 Ν ΄ Ν a Ν , a
ὅταν <6> κυβερνῶν εἰδῇ, πρὸς τίνα σκοπὸν δεῖ τὴν διέξοδον ποιεῖ-
lal “ /
σθαι. θεοῦ δ᾽ ἐπικλήσει καὶ βίος κυβερνᾶται κατὰ πάντα. Συν-
6 / \ , ἣν ε ΄σ 3 / an x > a
ανθομολογησάμενος δὲ τούτῳ τὸν ἑξῆς Hpwra Ilws <dv> dvapap-
4 ε ἣν > ε σ ‘ ει Ν “
τητος εἴη; ὃ δὲ ἔφησεν Ὥς ἅπαντα πράσσων καὶ μετὰ διαλογισμοῦ,
a 5 “ἃ na
«al μὴ πειθόμενος διαβολαῖς, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ὧν δοκιμαστὴς τῶν λεγο-
μένων, καὶ κρίσει κατευθύνων τὰ τῶν ἐντεύξεων, καὶ διὰ κρίσεως
> a A > , ΝΜ x ες > a Ν >
ἐπιτελῶν ταῦτα, ἀναμάρτητος, ἔφησεν, av εἴης, ὦ βασιλεῦ. τὸ ὃ

9 a A N Aga ΄ > / / , δ 2
ἐπινοεῖν ταῦτα Kal ἐν τούτοις ἀναστρέφεσθαι θείας δυνάμεώς ἐστιν

2 αφροντις τις etn P] αφροντις (αφροστις G) τις εἰ GIK αφροντις τις 7

cett αφροντιστησει conj Schmidt 3 σπευδοι] σπευδὴ B om cett (spat 5
vel 6 litt hab T) 4 exyovwy A | om apn P 7 προστιθεμενος B
9 εκπεπτωκασιν C 11 φανησει P | om de P 12 κατα το (κατα τον EI)]
om P | om αν codd | αρμωσει P 13 ywwoxwy] om codd ex conj sup-
plevi | @pacu—yevos] φησι θρασυ To θηλὺ yevos εστι P | εστιν εφη TBrbricator
(εστι B*)] eore cett 14 om xa P | μεταπιπτων GI | evkokws P

15 και] kav K |Ικατεσκευασθη P -σθαι CZ 16 εριν] apew GI ερριν PZ
17 o xvBepywy] om P κυβερνων cett | nin H dy KA | διεξοδον BCTZ] e€o-
Sov cett 18 xara] και τα I | παν C | cuvavrou. AGICZ 19 rovrw]
τουτον PCZ | om αν codd 20 απαν H*A (aray Hor) | om και P | μετα
partim sup ras I 23 om εφησεν P

®IAOKPATEI. 563

ὟΝ \ Ν wn > | Ν A > ’ὔ
ἔργον. Διαχυθεὶς δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὸν ἕτερον ἠρώτα
a_ x 3 Ν a , Ν ΠΣ γ΄. , { ,
Πώς ἂν ἐκτὸς θυμοῦ γένοιτο; πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ εἶπε Γινώσκων ὅτι πάντων
3 , »” / 3 ΄ a / 3 / εὖ Ξ 3
ἐξουσίαν ἔχει, καί, εἰ χρήσαιτο θυμῷ, θάνατον ἐπιφέρει" ὅπερ ἀνω-

~ lal nm Ν ’
φελὲς καὶ ἀλγεινόν ἐστιν, εἰ τὸ ζῇν ἀφελεῖται πολλῶν, διὰ τὸ κύριον
ΝΥ /
5 εἶναι. πάντων δ᾽ ὑπηκόων ὄντων Kal μηδενὸς ἐναντιουμένου, τίνος
/ , ΄ Ν a“ / x \ , 4
χάριν θυμωθήσεται; γινώσκειν δὲ δεῖ, διότι θεὸς τὸν πάντα κόσμον
διοικεῖ μετ᾽ εὐμενείας καὶ χωρὶς ὀργῆς ἁπάσης" τούτῳ δὲ κατακο-
a an > “ al
λουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστί σε, ἔφησεν, ὦ βασιλεῦ. Καλώς
Wah ΄ , a 3 ΄ a / ΠΣ
δὲ ἀποκεκρίσθαι φήσας τοῦτον ἐπυνθάνετο τοῦ μετέπειτα Τί ἐστιν
το εὐβουλία; Τὸ καλῶς ἅπαντα πράσσειν, ἀπεφήνατο, μετὰ διαλογι-
“ Ν Ν Ν / \ Ν Ν a Ν
σμοῦ, κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν παρατιθέντα καὶ <Ta> βλαβερὰ τῶν κατὰ
an 4 ϑ
τὸ ἐναντίον τοῦ λόγου διάστημα, ἵνα πρὸς ἕκαστον ἐπινοήσαντες
> > / Ν Ν \ th A 9 a ἈΝ > >
ὦμεν εὖ βεβουλευμένοι, καὶ τὸ προτεθὲν ἡμῖν ἐπιτελῆται. τὸ δ᾽ αὖ
/ -“ , a tA , τ}
κράτιστον, θεοῦ δυναστείᾳ πᾶν βούλευμα «τελείωσιν ἕξει:- σοι
ἧς > / > a / NB) \ “ > \
15 τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀσκοῦντι. Κατωρθωκέναι δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἰπὼν
ΕἿΣ ἴω
ἄλλον ἠρώτα Ἵ Τί ἐστι φιλοσοφία; Τὸ καλώς διαλογίζεσθαι πρὸς
4 - / 5 ΄ ‘\ x 5 ΄ὔ “
ἕκαστον τῶν συμβαινόντων, ἀπεφήνατο, καὶ μὴ ἐκφέρεσθαι ταῖς
ὁρμαῖς, ἀλλὰ τὰς βλάβας καταμελετᾷν τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐκβαι-
΄, A
νούσας, καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν πράσσειν δεόντως μετριοπαθῆ καθε-
A 7 io is / a / ΄ Niel Ν
2. στῶτα. ἵνα δ᾽ ἐπίστασιν τούτων λαμβάνωμεν, θεραπεύειν δεῖ τὸν
Ἅ 3 / Ἀ Ν Lal Ὁ 5 ’ὔ ~ x
θεόν. Ἐπισημήνας δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἕτερον ἠρώτα Πῶς ἂν
> a ε ΔΛ , 3 a ” / μὴ Ἂ
ἀποδοχῆς ἡ ξενιτεία τυγχάνοι; Πᾶσιν ἴσος γενόμενος, ἔφη, καὶ
a 4 τὸ / 4 \ “Ὁ ΄
μᾶλλον ἥττων ἢ καθυπερέχων φαινόμενος πρὸς ovs ἕενιτεύει.
κοινῶς γὰρ 6 θεὸς τὸ ταπεινούμενον προσδέχεται κατὰ͵ φύσιν, καὶ τὸ
os > ΄ ΄ \ ε ΄, a 3
25 τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος τοὺς ὑποτασσομένους φιλανθρωπεῖ. Επι-

α 7 δὲ τού ἴλλον nowra Πῶς <a> ἂν κατασκευάση καὶ
μαρτυρήσας δὲ τούτοις ἄλλον ἡρώτ ὥς <a> ἂν κατα Ἢ

2 γινωσκειν 1 3 ἐχεὶς Α | χρῆσαι τω P| θυμοῦ HKAGICZ | επι-
φερειν Β 6 de Ρ] om cett | διοτι] οτι KBT 7 τουτο PZ | κατακολου-
θειν] ἘσεΡ 8 σε] οἵῃχ P σοι H° | om εφησεν w Καὶ 10 πραττειν B |
μετα] δὲ Ζ 11 ra κατα την ιδιαν βουλὴν παρατιθεντας B | om τα
codd | om των B 13 επιτελειται CPZ 14 τελειωσιν εξει σοι ex conj]
Tews συνέξει σοι BT ιν εξισοι Z τεως ιν (ινα C) εξισοι cett 15 κατορθωκεναι
HKGICZ | eras HGICZ 17 εκαστὰ BPTZ 19 7a] τὰς ΒῚ 20 dew
B* δὲ (pro deov ἢ) K txt cett 21 επισημανας P (-μειν. Z*) 22 tTvyxavn
PT -ve. Z | ywopevos P 23 nrrov GIZ* | ξενιτευη BT 24 om και B
25 Ὑγενος]- και B | φιλοῴφρονει B 26 om a codd

36—2

qc

HKAGIB
CPTZ

564 APISTEAS

Ν a / x Co Ie 9 > ΄, Ν \ a
μετὰ τοῦτο διαμένῃ; πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ εἶπεν Ei μεγάλα καὶ σεμνὰ ταῖς
“-“ Ἁ “ Ν Ν
ποιήσεσιν ἐπιτελοῖ, πρὸς τὸ φείσασθαι τοὺς θεωροῦντας διὰ τὴν
“ ~ /
καλλονήν, καὶ μηθένα τῶν κατεργαζομένων τὰ τοιαῦτα παραπέμποι,
n / Ν Ν Ν 4
μηδὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀμισθὶ συντελεῖν ἀναγκάζοι τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν.
A \ A > , /
διανοούμενος yap ws θεὸς πολυωρεῖ TO τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, χορη- 5
γῶν αὐτοῖς καὶ ὑγείαν καὶ εὐαισθησίαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά, καὶ αὐτὸς
ἀκόλουθόν τι πράξει τῶν κακοπαθειών ἀποδιδοὺς τὴν ἀντάμειψιν.
Ν Ν ΕΣ ΄ 7 “ Α / >
τὰ yap ἐκ δικαιοσύνης τελούμενα, ταῦτα καὶ διαμένει. Ev
lal > ΄ ΄ ’ὔ
δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἰρηκέναι φήσας τὸν δέκατον ἠρώτα Τί ἐστι σοφίας
πὶ A “ \ / Ν
καρπός; ὃ δὲ εἶπε Τὸ μὴ συνιστορεῖν ἑαυτῷ κακὸν πεπραχότι, τὸν 1
/
δὲ βίον ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διεξάγειν. ἐκ τούτων yap κρατίστη χαρὰ καὶ
Lal lal Ν re
ψυχῆς εὐστάθειά σοι γίνεται, μέγιστε βασιλεῦ, Kat ἐλπίδες ἐπὶ θεῴ
lal “ “a A ε ΄,
καλαὶ κρατοῦντί σοι τῆς ἀρχῆς εὐσεβῶς. Ὡς δὲ συνήκουσαν
πάντες ἐπεφώνησαν σὺν κρότῳ πλείονι. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τὸ
προπιεῖν ὁ βασιλεὺς [λαμβάνειν] ἐτράπη, χαρᾷ πεπληρωμένος.
lal an / / “ Ν /
Τῇ δ᾽ ἑξῆς καθὼς πρότερον ἡ διάταξις ἦν τῶν κατὰ TOV πότον
3 / ~ Ν 4 A 3 ΄ ε \
ἐπιτελουμένων, καιροῦ δὲ γενομένου τοὺς ἀπολιπόντας ὃ βασιλεὺς
> 4 Ν Ν ~ ἣν y “A Ἃ Ἀ , > ᾿
ἐπηρώτα. πρὸς τὸν πρῶτον δὲ ἔφη Πῶς ἂν μὴ τράποι τις εἰς:
ε , > ΄ > Ν 3 / “ \ 79 be
ὑπερηφανίαν ; ἀπεκρίθη δέ Ei τὴν ἰσότητα τηροῖ, καὶ παρ᾽ ἕκαστον
, 4 “~
ἑαυτὸν ὑπομιμνήσκοι, καθὼς ἄνθρωπος dv ἀνθρώπων ἡγεῖται. καὶ
’ ~ a ἈΝ
6 θεὸς τοὺς ὑπερηφάνους καθαιρεῖ, τοὺς δὲ ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ ταπεινοὺς
ὑψοῖ. Παρακαλέσας δὲ αὐτὸν τὸν ἑξῆς ἐπηρώτα Τίσι δεῖ
συμβούλοις χρῆσθαι; τοῖς διὰ πολλῶν, ἔφη, πεπειραμένοις πραγ-
” 4 “
μάτων, καὶ τὴν εὐνοιαν συντηροῦσιν ἀκέραιον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ τῶν

΄ ¢ , Sean 6 a δὲ > ΄ ΄, Ν \
TPOTWV οσοι μετέχουσιν avuTw. €OU O€ ἐπιφανεια γίνεται προς TA 2

HKAGIB 1 προς τουτ---επιτελοι (2)])om HKA 2 επιτελοιη P| ras 6.Z 8 .μη-
PTZ deva GI | παραπεμπει P 4 αμισθοι Z | αναγκαζει P 6 autos] avras A
8 διαμενοι B 11 διεξαγειν P] διαγειν B διεξαγαγειν cett | χαρὰ κρατιστη
Β 13 κρατουν Z* 15 mew AB | λαμβανειν (-νην P)] hab codd omn

Fort cf mew δουναι etc vel προποσιν pro mpomew legendum | xapas KBP
xapa τι Z 16 το ὃ εξης B | καθως] - και Bj κατα των rorwy Z 17 ywo-
μενου KAGI 18 ἐπηρωτα BPT] επερωτα cett | tparn K τραπειὴ Β
τραποιὴ PZ txt cett | om es P 19 τηρει BPT 20 ὑπομιμνήσκει BPT |
o] ws B 22 npwra B erepwra Z txt cett | dec ex de vel dn fact in B
23 εφη P] om cett post mpayuarwy ins ZO 24f τὸν τρόπον H 25 θεου
—aévows (1, pag 565)] om BPTZ

Io

15

20

25

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 565

“ “ ὙΜ
τοιαῦτα τοῖς ἀξίοις. ᾿Ἐπαινέσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἄλλον ἠρώτα Τίς
3 “ “ 5 ΄ a“ e /
ἐστι βασιλεῖ κτῆσις ἀναγκαιοτάτη; Tov ὑποτεταγμένων φιλαν-
. ¥
θρωπία καὶ ἀγάπησις, ἀπεκρίνατο. διὰ yap τούτων ἄλυτος εὐνοίας
δεσμὸς γίνεται. τὸ δὲ γίνεσθαι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ταῦτα ὃ θεὸς
3 a“ / ἊΝ 3 \ ε / ’
ἐπιτελεῖ. Κατεπαινέσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἑτέρου διεπυνθάνετο
Τί πέρας ἐστὶ λόγου; κἀκεῖνος δὲ ἔφησε Τὸ πεῖσαι τὸν ἀντιλέγοντα,
ὃ Ν a ¢ , 4Eé Ν “ > ΄ KA Ν
ιὰ τῆς ὑποτεταγμένης τάξεως τὰς βλάβας ἐπιδεικνύντα: οὕτω γὰρ
΄ N 3 Ν 5 3 7 4 Ν > / Ν
λήψῃ τὸν ἀκροατὴν οὐκ ἀντικείμενος, συγχρώμενος δὲ ἐπαίνῳ πρὸς
Ν An a Ν 2 / τὸ ΄ Ἂν Ν
τὸ πεῖσαι. θεοῦ δὲ ἐνεργείᾳ κατευθύνεται πειθώ. Ev δὲ
NA , a cy aN bd Ne? WG " δ : au ” Ν "
έγειν φήσας αὐτὸν ἕτερον ἠρώτα Ilws av, παμμιγῶν ὄχλων ὄντων
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ, τούτοις -ἁρμόσαι:- ; Τὸ πρέπον ἑκάστῳ συνυποκρινό-
μενος, εἶπε, καθηγεμόνα λαμβάνων δικαιοσύνην" ὡς καὶ ποιεῖς θεοῦ
> Ἂ
σοι διδόντος εὖ λογίζεσθαι. Φιλοφρονηθεὶς δὲ τούτῳ πρὸς
XN oa > 3 Ἂ / ἴω lad θ Ν A“ 3 Ό Ν
τὸν ἕτερον εἶπεν ᾿Επὶ τίσι δεῖ λυπεῖσθαι; Πρὸς ταῦτα, ἀπεκρίθη, τὰ
, a , “ a , SA's ly
συμβαίνοντα τοῖς φίλοις, ὅταν θεωρῶμεν πολυχρόνια καὶ ἀνέκφευκτα
γινόμενα. τελευτήσασι μὲν γὰρ καὶ κακῶν ἀπολελυμένοις οὐχ
ὑπογράφει λύπην ὁ λόγος" ἀλλὰ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναφέροντες καὶ τὸ
Ν ε \ / “ / 4 θ Ν A> 9 lal
πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς συμφέρον λυποῦνται πάντες ἀνθρωποι. τὸ δ᾽ ἐκφυγεῖν
an \ cal ΄ὔ c 4
πᾶν κακὸν θεοῦ δυνάμει γίνεται. Ὡς ἔδει δὲ φήσας αὐτὸν
> , ἂν Ὡ > ~ 5 » / 5 “~ Ν
ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρὸς ἕτερον εἶπε lds ἀδοξία γίνεται; ἐκεῖνος δὲ
»Μ ν « ff Q ~ XN 6 ΄ 1A. 3
εφησεν ταν ὑπερηφανία καθηγῆται καὶ θρασος ἀλήκτον, ατιμα-
XN > , XN δόέ 3 / ἣν δὲ δόέξ if 4
σμὸς ἐπιφύεται καὶ δόξης αναίρεσις. θεὸς δὲ δόξης πάσης κυριεύει,
4 = , \ ΄ ὩΣ Ἔὶ ΄ Ν - >
ῥέπων ov βούλεται. Καὶ τούτῳ δ᾽ ἐπικυρώσας τὰ τῆς ἀπο-
͵ \ e ee 3 / f- Qn A / ε 4 aA Ν Ν
κρίσεως τὸν ἑξῆς ἠρώτα Τίσι δεῖ πιστεύειν ἑαυτόν ; Τοῖς διὰ τὴν

» 3 A
εὔνοιαν, εἶπε, συνοῦσί σοι, Kal μὴ διὰ TOV φόβον μηδὲ διὰ πολυ-

1 τι] το t 2 βασιλει] βασιλικὴ A | κτισις GI 4 TavTa κατα
προαιρεσιν B 5 επιτελοι Z ετερου] τον ετερον BTZ επυνθανετο ΒΖ
7 επιδεικνυντας HGIPZ υποδεικνυντας K 8 ληψει AP Any Zt (ληψαι
Zms) | αντικειμενον BPTZ 10 φησαΞ]) πεισας Zt eras Z™S | erepor] pr
τον Καὶ 11 αρμοσει Β΄ (-ση BT) apuoon cett | συναποκρινομενος PT
13 τοῦτο PZ*™* (rovroy Z™8) 14 λυπησθαι P 15 ανευῴφευκτα HGI
ανεκῴφευτα T avedevxta Z avexpuxta B txt KAP 17 f ro προς eav-
τους] προς To εαὐυτοις P 19 δυναμεως ΒΤ 20 αποκρινασθαι
(ΘΠ Π δ): ΟΣ το corr 21 καθηγειται GIA 22 αναιρεσις BPT] αιρεσις
cett | απασης P 23 τοῦτο Z | ταὶ τὰς GI 25 εἰπε] edn
BT

HKAGIB
PTZ

566 APISTEAS

/ Ν Ν
ὡρίαν, ἐπανάγοντας πάντα πρὸς τὸ κερδαίνειν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ aya-
x “ ’ Ν
πήσεως σημεῖον, τὸ δὲ δυσνοίας καὶ καιροτηρησίας: ὃς γὰρ ἐπὶ
τὸ πλεονεκτεῖν ὁρᾶται προδότης πέφυκε. σὺ δὲ πάντας εὐνόους
“ / »“»"
ἔχεις θεοῦ σοι καλὴν βουλὴν διδόντος. Σοφῶς δὲ αὐτὸν
ae 9 ΄ὕ AS a ΄ ΄ “ Ν a>
εἰπὼν ἀποκεκρίσθαι, ἑτέρῳ εἶπε Τί βασιλείαν διατηρεῖ; πρὸς TOUT 5
ΑΡ " 4 Ν ,ὔ ε 3 ‘\ ’ Ν ~ 5
ἔφη Μέριμνα καὶ φροντίς, ὡς οὐδὲν κακουργηθήσεται διὰ τῶν ἀπο-
m” a cal ΄
τεταγμένων εἰς τοὺς ὄχλους ταῖς χρείαις" καθὼς σὺ τοῦτο πράσσεις
“ ΄ -“
θεοῦ σοι τὴν σεμνὴν ἐπίνοιαν διδόντος. Θαρσύνας δὲ τοῦτον
“ > s / ΄ ΄ Ν ΄ ε Ν >
ἕτερον ἐπηρώτα Ti διαφυλάσσει χάριτα καὶ τιμήν; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν
aA. / r “ ᾿ ” > Ν 5 aN ἃ, δὲ Ν 3 β
ρετή. καλῶν γὰρ ἔργων ἐστὶν ἐπιτέλεια, τὸ δὲ κακὸν ἀποτρίβε-
a ¢ ,
ται καθὼς ov διατηρεῖς τὴν πρὸς ἅπαντας καλοκαγαθίαν παρὰ
cal “ a > “ ᾽
θεοῦ δώρον τοῦτ᾽ ἔχων. Κεχαρισμένως δὲ καὶ τοῦτον ἀπο-
. / ~
deapevos τὸν ἑνδέκατον ἐπηρώτα (διὰ τὸ δύο πλεονάζειν τῶν ἑβδο-
, a “Δ Ν Ν AS a / > “ μὴ
μήκοντα) Πώς ἂν κατὰ ψυχὴν καὶ ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις εἰρηνικῶς ἔχοι;
ε | We ΟἹ / / g Ν ENB ” a «
ὁ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Διαλαμβάνων ὅτι κακὸν οὐδὲν εἴργασται τῶν ὗπο- τ
> “-“ “ 4
τεταγμένων οὐθενί, πάντες δὲ ἀγωνιοῦνται περὶ τῶν εὐεργετημά-
x a ΄“ > "4 “
των, εἰδότες, κἂν ἐκ τοῦ ζῇν ἀποτρέχωσιν, ἐπιμελητὴν σε TOV
/ > ἣν , 5 a a “a “
βίων. οὐ γὰρ διαλείπεις ἐπανορθῶν ἅπαντας τοῦ θεοῦ σοι καλο-
΄, > / , ΄, 5 Ν
φροσύνην δεδωκότος. Ἐπισημήνας δὲ κρότῳ πάντας αὐτοὺς
> / / Ν ΄ ε / a? \
ἀπεδέξατο φιλοφρονούμενος, καὶ προπίνων ἑκάστῳ πλεῖόν TL πρὸς
“ “ > ΄ Ν a
τὸ τερφθῆναι, pet εὐφροσύνης τοῖς ἀνδράσι συνὼν Kal χαρᾶς
πλείονος.
a ε , ν a ε “ ͵ὔ ~ ,
Τῇ ἑβδόμῃ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν, πλείονος παρασκευῆς γενομένης,

/ ΄ ε / > Ν ω / > Ν
προσπαραγινομένων πλειόνων ἑτέρων ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων (ἦσαν γὰρ

"

HKAGIB 1 επαναγουσι B επαναγαγουσι Ζ 51 eravaywv P txt cett | παντὰας P
PIZ 3 το] τω B* (το Bor) T (ex ro fact vid) | opa BT°™ (ται del rubricator)
4 διδουντος Z* | copws BT] σαῴφως cett 5 eras GIZ| διατηροι G
8 θρασυνας KB 9 διαφυλασση I (-λαττει B) 10 καλὸν yap epyov

K | εστιν---διατηρεις τὴν (11)] om HKA 12 κεχαρισμενος AZ* xexapt-,
τωμενως 1 18 των Β] τους cett | εβδομηκοντα] ο KGIBT. Ad hoc notat
τον ἐνδεκατον δε epwra δια To δυο πλεοναζειν των εβδομηκοντα οπισθεν yap

ava deka npwra Bms (rubricator) 16 ουθενι KPT] ovdexr B ουὐθεν HAGI |
δε] yap B* 17 αποτρεχουσιν GIH (-σι) Z* vid 20 προπινων Β]
προσπινων cett 21 post τερῴφθηναι fort ετραπη excidit | τ. avd. συν. μετ

ευφ. Z 23 δε BPT]omcett ᾿ 24 προσπαραγενομενων er. πλειονων K |
om ἡσαν---πρεσβεις (1, pag 567) BPTZ ;

Io

15

20

25

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂. 567

ε \ / 5 / ts Ν A / Ν
ἱκανοὶ πρέσβεις), ἐπηρώτησεν ὃ βασιλεὺς καιροῦ γενομένου τὸν
ν΄ “ 3 i“ ~ / A x > /
πρωτεύοντα TOV ἀπολιπόντων τῆς ἐρωτήσεως [[ὥς av απαραλό-
» ΕῚ A Ν + 7 Ν Ν / Ν Ν
γιστος <ein>; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Δοκιμαάζων καὶ τὸν λέγοντα καὶ τὸ
, \ \ , , Xs 5 ΄, ΄ \ 4. δ >
λεγόμενον καὶ περὶ Tivos λέγει, Kal ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ τὰ αὐτὰ δι
coef / > a Ἂς Ν “ δ 96λ \ ,
ἑτέρων τρόπων ἐπερωτῶν. τὸ δὲ νοῦν ἔχειν ὀξὺν Kai δύνασθαι

, « A , ΄ > ε \ a ,
KPLVELV εκαστα Geov δώρημα καλὸν εστιν᾽ WS OV TOVTO KEKTYIOAL,

§ yun > Ε
βασιλεῦ. Κρότῳ δὲ ἐπισημηνάμενος ὃ βασιλεὺς ἕτερον

3 , > / Ν 9 Ν > / “ 5 /
ἐπηρώτα Διὰ τί τὴν ἀρετὴν οὐ παραδέχονται τῶν ἀνθρώπων
[2 ve 7 ΄ “ i 5 A \ > Ν Ν
οἱ πλείονες; Ὅτι φυσικῶς ἅπαντες, εἶπεν, ἀκρατεῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς
ε Ν , / ἃ 4 / > Ew) , y \ N ΄“ς
ἡδονὰς τρεπόμενοι γεγόνασιν᾽ ὧν χάριν ἀδικία πέφυκε καὶ τὸ τῆς
/ , \ Ἂς = 3 A / , Ν >
πλεονεξίας χύμα. τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀρετῆς κατάστημα κωλύει τοὺς ἐπιφε-
/ > XN Ἂς ef ,’ > ! XN , Ν Δ
ρομένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἡδονοκρασίαν, ἐγκράτειαν δὲ κελεύει καὶ δικαιο-
/ “ ec ΄ς Ἵ Ας ,ὔ e a / ‘ > Ν
σύνην προτιμᾶν. ὃ δὲ θεὸς πάντων ἡγεῖται τούτων. Εὖ δὲ
cal > / na
ἀποκεκρίσθαι τοῦτον εἰπὼν ὃ βασιλεὺς ἠρώτα Τίσι det κατακολου-
a Ν ~ "ἢ - Δ “
θεῖν τοὺς βασιλεῖς; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Τοῖς νόμοις, ἵνα δικαιοπραγοῦντες
τὰ A A 3 / ἣν “A /
ἀνακτῶνται τοὺς βίους τῶν ἀνθρώπων καθὼς σὺ τοῦτο πράσσων
3. / / “ ’ὔ /
ἀένναον μνήμην καταβέβλησαι σεαυτοῦ, θείῳ προστάγματι κατα-
lal “ ζω 4 Ν /
κολουθῶν. Εἰπὼν δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς λέγειν τὸν ἐχόμενον
ΕἸ ,ὕ , An , , ray de i ΄
ἠρώτα Tivas δεῖ καθιστάνειν στρατηγούς; ὃς δὲ εἶπεν Ὅσοι
᾽ Ν “ ͵΄ὕ εἶ Ἀ
μισοπονηρίαν ἔχουσι, καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν αὐτοῦ μιμούμενοι, πρὸς TO
\ 3 , 4 3 ΄ N ΄ ΄, x \ \
διαπαντὸς εὐδοξίαν ἔχειν αὐτούς, τὰ δίκαια πράσσουσι᾽ καθὼς σὺ
“ an Ss “ A /
τοῦτο ἐπιτελεῖς, εἶπε, βασιλεῦ, θεοῦ σοι στέφανον δικαιοσύνης
’ὔ .-’ὕ Ν Ν a \ \
δεδωκότος. ᾿Αποδεξάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν μετὰ φωνῆς ἐπὶ τὸν
an Ἂς “A /
ἐχόμενον ἐπιβλέψας εἶπε Τίνας δεῖ καθιστάνειν ἐπὶ τῶν δυνάμεων
” , . > , \ \
ἄρχοντας; ὃ δὲ ἀπεφήνατο Τοὺς ἀνδρείᾳ διαφέροντας καὶ δικαιο-

, \ \ “ ΄, Ν / \ A ὃ Ἃ Ν
σύνῃ, καὶ περὶ πολλοῦ ποιουμένους τὸ σώζειν τοὺς ἀνδρας ἢ τὸ

1 επερωτησεν Z | γινομενου HAIPZ | τον] των Z* 2 απολειποντων P
3 evn ex corr] ἡ codd omn | δοκιμαζοντα Z | το] τον codd omn 4 χρονων
G 5 ἐπερωτων τρόπων A 6 ws] o HKA | Touro bis scr T 8 επε-
pwra Z | om ov ( | tov ανθρωπὼν BPT] τινες των ανθρωπων cett 9 εἰπεν]
womep BT εἰπερ CZ* 11 διάστημα CPZ (κατα- sup ras T) 12 και
dix. κελευει B 14 amoxpwacba BPT -εσθαι Z| amas GICZ | npwra]
αλλον np. H np. ετερον BT np. τον εξης P txt KAGIC τον per avtov np.
edd pr 18 emas GIC εἰπε Z 21 avras H 22 εἰπε] om P
εἰπεν o C +peytote BT | δικαιοσυνην C 26 το 2°] tw ABCT (fort
ex To T)

Q

HKAGI
BCPIZ

HKAGI
BCPTZ

568 APISTEAS

"Ὁ νικᾶν, TO θράσει -«παραβάλλοντας:- τὸ ζῇν. ws" yap ὃ θεὸς εὖ

-“ \ “~ ’ > “A \
ἐργάζεται πᾶσι, καὶ σὺ τοῦτον μιμούμενος εὐεργετεῖς τοὺς ὑπὸ

ε > , ΄ > »*
σεαυτόν. Ο δὲ ἀποκεκρίσθαι φήσας αὐτὸν εὖ, ἄλλον ἠρώτα
΄, Ν ΕἾ
Τίνα θαυμάζειν ἀξιόν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπον ; ὃ δὲ ἔφη Τὸν κεχορηγημένον
ὃ Lé \ ΑΥ̓͂ ’ὔ Ἂς ὃ ᾿ 4 Ν Ν »” cal 5» Ξ 6 \
0& καὶ πλούτῳ Kal δυνάμει, καὶ ψυχὴν ἴσον πᾶσιν ovTa’ καθὼς
nw A 7x / 5 -“ ~ nw
σὺ τοῦτο ποιῶν αἀξιοθαύμαστος εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ σοι διδόντος εἰς ταῦτα
Ν > , 3 ΄ Ν Ν 4 \ Ν 9
τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. Ἐπιφωνήσας δὲ καὶ τούτῳ πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον
> 3 a“ ΄ \ ~ Ν /
εἶπεν “Kv τίσι det πράγμασι τοὺς βασιλεῖς τὸν πλείω χρόνον διά-
> > a 7 ἈΝ n “ a
γειν; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν “Ev tats ἀναγνώσεσι καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν πορειῶν
> n / ov Ν Ν [4 > /
ἀπογραφαῖς διατρίβειν, ὅσαι πρὸς τὰς βασιλείας ἀναγεγραμμέναι
, / \ 3 / ay
τυγχάνουσι, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν καὶ διαμονὴν avOpwrwv. ὃ σὺ
3 ΜΝ ΟἿ: na Ν
πράσσων -«-ἀνέφικτον:- ἄλλοις δόξαν κέκτησαι θεοῦ σοι τὰ βουλή-
ματα συντελοῦντος. ᾿Ἐνεργῶς δὲ καὶ τοῦτον προσειπὼν
, a “ \ lal
ἕτερον ἠρώτα Τίνας δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς διαγωγὰς ἐν ταῖς ἀνέσεσι
Ν ε 6 4 A = de ” Θ ae 9 < 16 > \
καὶ ῥᾳθυμίαις; ὃ δὲ ἔφη Oewpety ὅσα <mailetar> μετὰ περι-
an \ Ν 5 »- Zz A nn - > 5
στολῆς, καὶ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν τιθέναι τὰ τοῦ βίου per εὐσχημο-
σύνης καὶ καταστολῆς γινόμενα, <ei> Biot σωφρονῶν καὶ κατέχων"
/ εν Ν A
ἔνεστι yap καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐπισκευή τις. πολλάκις yap Kal ἐκ TOV
Aa >
ἐλαχίστων αἱρετόν τι δείκνυται. σὺ δὲ πᾶσαν ἡσκηκὼς καταστολὴν
a“ a - \ ~
διὰ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν φιλοσοφεῖς διὰ καλοκἀγαθίαν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τιμώ-
’, ζω Ν
μενος. Εὐαρεστήσας δὲ τοῖς προειρημένοις πρὸς τὸν ἔνατον
> n a 90 A , \
εἶπε Ids δεῖ διὰ τῶν συμποσίων διεξάγειν; ὃ δὲ ἔφησε Παραλαμ-
a ε ’ XN
Bavovra τοὺς φιλομαθεῖς καὶ δυναμένους ὑπομιμνήσκειν τὰ χρήματα
na ͵ Ἀν \ rat 3 , , > / ΕΥ̓
τῆς βασιλείας καὶ τοὺς τῶν ἀρχομένων βίους--- ἐμμελέστερον ἢ μου-
/ \ e Ἀ a“
TLKWTEPOV οὐκ ἂν εὕροις TL τούτων: οὗτοι yap θεοφιλεῖς εἰσι, πρὸς τὰ
, lal ’
κάλλιστα πεπαιδευκότες τὰς διανοίας---καθὼς καὶ σὺ τοῦτο πράσσεις,

c ἍἋ ε Ν lal / ε / \
WS GV V7TO θεοῦ σοι κατευθυνομένων ATAVTWYV. Διαχυθεὶς

1 τω] ta P | παραβαλλοντας conj Schmidt] περιβαλλοντας codd
2 πασι) παλιν B 5 ψυχηι πασιν ισον H 7 rovro Z 8 de] de Z |
πλειονα A (πλειωι GI) 9 om ev 2° BT 12 πρασσων] πρασσων (-cws
K*) ws K | avedixrov Z™S] οὐκ εφικτον K εφικτον cett 13 τελουντος H
συντελουμενος CZ | evapyws B | rourw AB | προσειπας GICZ 14 ποιειν
K 15 om o δε egy Καὶ [οσα παιζεται (corr Schmidt)] οσα πλιζΐεται
HGICTZ* ooa οπλιζεται KAZ™S os ord. B 16 τιθεμενος B 17 εἰ
inserui | Bros Καὶ 21 evarov HB*] evvaroy cett 22 om de C
24 τους των apy. βιους B] ros τ. a. Bros cett 27 cov Zt

3

Io

15

20

25

Io

15

SIAOKPATEI. 569

.

Sa Ψ τ᾿. A 3 / > £ cal , , / ys >
δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἐπυνθάνετο Tod μετέπειτα Τί κάλλιστόν ἐστι
-“" y+ Po / “-“ 5» -“ a
τοῖς ὄχλοις, ἐξ ἰδιώτου βασιλέα κατασταθῆναι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἢ ἐκ βασι-
΄ 3 3 a a Ν ΝΜ “a , \ Ν
λέως βασιλέα; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη «Τὸν: ἄριστον τῇ φύσει. καὶ γὰρ
a / \ ΄
ἐκ βασιλέων βασιλεῖς γινόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους ἀνήμε-
’, “ ““ ““
ροί τε καὶ σκληροὶ καθίστανται: πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον καί τινες τῶν
a aA / »
ἰδιωτῶν Kal κακῶν πεπειραμένοι Kal πενίας μετεσχηκότες ἄρξαντες
Μ / A > , / 2 , > \ ε
ὄχλων χαλεπώτεροι τῶν ἀνοσίων τυράννων ἐξέβησαν. ἀλλὰ ws
A 4 Ν Ν »”
προεῖπον, ἦθος χρηστὸν Kal παιδείας κεκοινωνηκὸς δυνατὸν ἄρχειν
ἐστί καθὼς σὺ βασιλεὺς μέγας tra ὺ υ δόξῃ TH
ς ς μέγας ὑπάρλεις, οὐ τοσοῦτον τῇ δόξῃ τῆς
3 “ Ν δ ’ὔ f£ Ψ > , Ν Ν 0 / ΄
ἀρχῆς καὶ πλούτῳ προσχών, ὅσον ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ πάντας
͵, A a A “.
ἀνθρώπους ὑπερῆρκας τοῦ θεοῦ σοι δεδωρημένου ταῦτα. "Ext
/ / ἴων an 3
πλείονα χρόνον καὶ τοῦτον ἐπαινέσας τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἠρώτα Τί
Α ΄ 3 4 Ν ca) > Ν \ 2 4:. [ἐδ
μέγιστόν ἐστι βασιλείας; πρὸς τοῦτο εἶπε Τὸ διαπαντὸς ἐν εἰρήνῃ
/
καθεστάναι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους, Kal κομίζεσθαι TO δίκαιον ταχέως
ἴω Lal /
ἐν ταῖς διακρίσεσι. ταῦτα δὲ γίνεται διὰ τὸν ἡγούμενον, ὅταν
΄ > \ ΄ \ \ a ΄ \
μισοπόνηρος ἢ καὶ φιλάγαθος Kai περὶ πολλοῦ ποιούμενος ψυχὴν
΄ ¢
ἀνθρώπου σώζειν: καθὼς καὶ σὺ μέγιστον κακὸν ἥγησαι τὴν
5 ΄ 4 Ν fi a“ Nis Ν \ Ν Q 7
ἀδικίαν, δικαίως δὲ πάντα κυβερνῶν ἀένναον τὴν περὶ σεαυτὸν δόξαν
΄ “ A la
κατεσκευάσας, τοῦ θεοῦ σοι διδόντος ἔχειν ἁγνὴν Kal ἀμιγῆ παντὸς
“ ‘\ Ms ΄ὔ Ἂς , 7
κακοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν. Καταλήξαντος δὲ τούτου κατερράγη
/ A a N /
κρότος μετὰ φωνῆς καὶ χαρᾶς ἐπὶ πλείονα χρόνον. ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο,
ε Ν \ ΄ 3 / \ a / ε ΄
ὁ βασιλεὺς λαβὼν ποτήριον ἐπεχέατο καὶ τῶν παρόντων ἁπάντων
Ν a 3 ΄ , 5 5. a Ν > Ν ,
καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων λόγων. “ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ εἶπε Τὰ μέγιστά μοι
΄ 3 Ν , ε a Ν bs! 5 ΄
γέγονεν ἀγαθὰ παραγενηθέντων ὑμῶν: πολλὰ γὰρ ὠφέλημαι, κατα-
λ [4 4 A διὸ Ν > \ \ \ Χ 7 ε /
βεβλημένων ὑμῶν διδαχὴν ἐμοὶ πρὸς τὸ βασιλεύειν. ἑκάστῳ
΄, 3 a > ,
δὲ τρία τάλαντα προσέταξεν ἀργυρίου δοθῆναι Kal τὸν ἀποκαταστή-

1 om δε Καὶ 8 τὸ ἀριστον ΒΟΤΖ το αρεστον HKAGI 4 εκ] pr HKAGIB
οἱ K | βασιλεων] βασιλεως Β | om βασιλεις HA | γενομενοι Καὶ 5 om δε CTZ Jos

Ζ των ιδιωτων τινες BT 6 ιδιωτικων Z 8 παιδειας KB (medias B*)
TZ (ex -evav)| madera (-δια C) cett 9 βασιλευ T* vid 11 ὑπερηρας
KB* | ere πλειονα xpovoy] cum praecedd conj Schmidt (sic HKA). Cf
autem p 557 1 9, infra 1 21 13 rovro GICT*] τουτον HKABTSOF
14 νομιΐεσθαι C 17 κακον B] om cett 18 σεαυτου CBvid 19 κατα-
oxevacas HI | om exew Z | aucynv C 22 AaBwy cum M restitui] λαλων
codd cett 23 τον evpnuevov λογον K | Noyov Z™S | μεγιστα] παμμεγιστα

A 24 παραγεγενημενων B | wheAnua GI | καταβεβληκοτων B

q Jos

8 Jos

HKAGIB
CTZ Jos

570 APISTEAS

-“ « ’ Ν ’ὔ »“" > , A
σοντα παῖδα. συνεπιφωνησάντων δὲ πάντων, χαρᾶς ἐπληρώθη τὸ
,ὕ > ΄, ~ ΄ > > / 4
συμπόσιον, ἀδιαλείπτως τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς εὐφροσύνην τραπέντος.
Ἔγω δὲ εἶ λείονα᾽ καὶ τοὐτοῖς, ὦ Φιλό )

yo δὲ εἶπα πλείονα᾽ καὶ TovTots, ὦ Φιλόκρατες, συγγνώμην
»” Ν Ν Ν Ed COs Ν ΄, ΒΟΥ A oe
ἔχειν. τεθαυμακὼς yap τοὺς ἄνδρας ὑπὲρ τὸ δέον, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ τὰς
> ἴω “ / ~ “
ἀποκρίσεις ἐποιοῦντο πολλοῦ χρόνου δεομένας" καί, τοῦ μὲν ἐρωτῶντος
“ lal
μεμεριμνηκότος ἕκαστα, τῶν δὲ ἀποκρινομένων ἀλλήλως ἐχόντων
δ 5, ἴω -“
τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἐρωτήσεις, ἄξιοι θαυμασμοῦ κατεφαίνοντό μοι καὶ τοῖς
΄- , Ν a / + Ν Ν cal lal
παροῦσι, μάλιστα δὲ Tots φιλοσόφοις. οἴομαι δὲ Kal πᾶσι τοῖς
Ν 3 Ν ” “A /, ἈΝ
παραληψομένοις τὴν ἀναγραφὴν ἄπιστον φανεῖται. ψεύσασθαι μὲν
= a a >
οὖν ov καθῆκόν ἐστι περὶ TOV ἀναγραφομένων: εἰ δὲ καί TL παρα-
/ 3 bf 2 ΄ ar 3 ςε , id ὃ cal
βαίην, οὐχ ὅσιον ἐν τούτοις: ἀλλ᾽, ws γέγονεν, οὕτως διασαφοῦμεν
5 “ / ΄ “
ἀφοσιούμενοι πᾶν ἁμάρτημα. διόπερ ἐπειράθην ἀποδεξάμενος αὐτῶν
lal Ν a ¢ “
τὴν τοῦ λόγου δύναμιν παρὰ τῶν ἀναγραφομένων ἕκαστα τῶν
lal “ “ ΄ Ν n
γινομένων ἔν τε τοῖς χρηματισμοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ταῖς συμ-
, a 3, ’, 3 θ \ Ν Ν , 24?
ποσίαις μεταλαβεῖν. ἔθος yap ἐστι, καθὼς Kai ov γινώσκεις, ad
e a “Ay, ε \ » , , e
ἧς av ἡμέρας ὃ βασιλεὺς ἄρξηται χρηματίζειν, μέχρις οὗ KaTa-
lad , , ra Ν / ΄
κοιμηθῇ, πάντα ἀναγράφεσθαι τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ πρασσόμενα, καλῶς
/ A“ ral
γινομένου καὶ συμφερόντως. τῇ yap ἐπιούσῃ τὰ TH πρότερον
πεπραγμένα καὶ λελαλημένα πρὸ τοῦ χρηματισμοῦ παραναγινώ-
’ὔ ,
σκεται, καί, εἴ TL μὴ δεόντως γεγονός, διορθώσεως τυγχάνει τὸ
> a
πεπραγμένον. πάντ᾽ οὖν, ἀκριβῶς πάντων ἀναγεγραμμένων, ws
5 / 4 / 930 7 ἃ » ,ἅ
ἐλέχθη, μεταλαβόντες κατακεχωρίκαμεν, εἰδότες ἣν ἔχεις φιλομά-
/
θειαν εἰς τὰ χρήσιμα.

ἐΜετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας 6 Δημήτριος παραλαβὼν αὐτούς, καὶ
Ν Ν “a c \ / > ΄ a dé Ν Ν
διελθὼν τὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ σταδίων ἀνάχωμα τῆς θαλάσσης πρὸς τὴν

~ /
νῆσον, καὶ διαβὰς τὴν γέφυραν, Kal προσελθὼν ws ἐπὶ τὰ βόρεια

6 καταλληλως BT 7 ral] tas C 8 de 29] ως B 9 απιστα Καὶ
12 αφοσιωμενοι HGICZ (αφωσιωμενοι A) 15 om ka I 16 om ay B |

αρξεται B 18 γενομενου I'| τη 2°] om H 19 λαλημενα Z | παρανα-
yw. BT] παραγινωσκεται cett 20 deovros CZ | yeyove BT txt (-vws GI)
cett | om τὸ πεπραγμενον BT 21 παντ] παντες C | παντ---μεταλαβον-

τες (22)] παντων ovy axpiBws των αναγεγραμμενων μετάλαβοντες παντες BT
22 ελεγχθη Z| κεχωρηκαμεν CZ κατακεχωρηκαμεν codd cett 26 διαβας
moos τὴν γεῴφυραν Jos | προελθων Jos | om ws Z

Un

10

15

20

4:

ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ. 571

, =
μέρη, συνέδριον ποιησάμενος εἰς κατεσκευασμένον οἶκον παρὰ τὴν
3...) a ” \ a ε , ” ,
ἠϊόνα, διαπρεπῶς ἔχοντα Kat πολλῆς ἡσυχίας ἔφεδρον, παρεκάλει
4 “-“ , ~ 4 a ΝΕ Ἂς
τοὺς ἀνδρας τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐπιτελεῖν, παρόντων ὅσα πρὸς τὴν
’ὔἢ »” “ ε δὲ > aN oe 7 A
χρείαν ἔδει καλῶς. οἱ δὲ ἐπετέλουν ἕκαστα σύμφωνα ποιοῦντες
~ ΕἸ a ἣν ~ , ,
πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ταῖς αντιβολαῖς: τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῆς συμφωνίας γινόμενον
a WA a ,
πρεπόντως ἀναγραφῆς οὕτως ἐτύγχανε παρὰ τοῦ Δημητρίου. καὶ
-“ ΄, Ν a > on
μέχρι μὲν ὥρας ἐνάτης τὰ τῆς συνεδρείας ἐγίνετο: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα
a , / > ,ὕ
περὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος θεραπείαν ἀπελύοντο γίνεσθαι, χορηγουμένων
> “-“ “-“ e “ ΄’΄ > \ Ν \ 5, ΚΕ 7
αὐτοῖς δαψιλῶς, ὧν προῃροῦντο, πάντων. ἐκτὸς δὲ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν,
σ an ἧς \ ,ὔ ε / 5 ἢ
ὅσα βασιλεῖ παρεσκευάζετο, καὶ τούτοις 6 Δωρόθεος ἐπετέλει"
΄, \ > Sts ὡς x a / ΞΡ Ν a aA
προστεταγμένον yap ἦν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βασιλέως. ἅμα δὲ TH Tpwla
\ 2\\ a, MEWS ΄ Ἢ
παρεγίνοντο εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, καὶ ποιησάμενοι τὸν
> \ A , 3 , \ \ ε A , ε Ἢ
ἀσπασμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀπελύοντο πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτῶν τόπον. ὡς δὲ
ΝΜ ΕἸ ν᾿ an a 3 ’ 5 , “- ,ὕ Ν
ἔθος ἐστὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις, -«ἀπονιψάμενοι:- τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς
τι ΕΑΓ τς " Ν , ΄ τ ,
χεῖρας, ὡς ἂν ηὔξαντο πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἐτρέποντο πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν
Ν Ν ε ΄ ΄ q 3 ΄ ἊΝ Ν A
Kal τὴν ἑκάστου διασάφησιν. Exnpwrynoa δὲ καὶ τοῦτο
’, “- a »
Tivos χάριν ἀπονιζόμενοι Tas χεῖρας TO τηνικαῦτα εὔχονται; διεσά-
aes ΄ / ω ΄, / la \
φουν δέ, ὅτι μαρτύριόν ἐστι τοῦ μηδὲν εἰργάσθαι κακόν: πᾶσα yap
’ ~ a an
ἐνέργεια διὰ TOV χειρῶν γίνεται: καλῶς Kal ὁσίως μεταφέροντες ἐπὶ
Ν »Ἅ \ Ν 3 , ΄ Ν Ν ,
τὴν δικαιοσύνην Kal THY ἀλήθειαν πάντα. καθὼς δὲ προειρήκαμεν,
-“ 4 > /
οὕτως καθ᾽ ἑκάστην εἰς τὸν τόπον, ἔχοντα τερπνότητα διὰ τὴν
ε ta , ’ὔ
ἡσυχίαν καὶ καταύγειαν, συναγόμενοι τὸ προκείμενον ἐπετέλουν.
, Ν Ld Y > ¢ / ε ΄ Ν a
συνέτυχε δὲ οὕτως, ὥστε ἐν ἡμέραις ἑβδομήκοντα δυσὶ τελειωθῆναι

Aa A“ ’, “
τὰ τῆς μεταγραφῆς, οἱονεὶ κατὰ πρόθεσίν τινα τοῦ τοιούτου γέγενη-

| Jos

μένου. ἐΤελείωσιν δὲ ὅτε ἔλαβε, συναγαγὼν ὃ Δημήτριος § Jos

1 κατασκευασμενον (Ζ 2 niov (ηιων Ζ) αδιαπρεπως H*GICZ nov HKAGIB
| CTZ Jos

διαπρεπως A 3 ra Ts] Tas BTZ 5 ταις αντιβολαις part sup ras B
yevouevoyv BCTZ 7 evatns HC] @ K evvarns cett | συνεδριας BCTZ
9 avros KBT Jos] aurwy cett 10 Aopodeos C 13 προς] εἰς BT (sed B
primum aliud scripsit quod postea erasit) | tov εαὐτων KBT] eavrwy codd
cett Tov avrov Jos 14 απονιψαμενους AICYIZ αἀπονιψαμενη B* -μενοις
cett 15 εὐξωνται K evéavto GI 16 ernpwrnca CT] ernpwra B
erepwrnoa cett | τουτον G 18 μηθεν Καὶ 20 εἰιρηκαμεν I 21 τερπνο-
τητα BIZ (-vwr.)] τερπω τια HKA*GIC (τερπωλην τινα Μ τερποτητα
Acorr vid) 23 εβδομηκοντα συν dvow K εβδ. και dvow Jos εβδομηκοντα
dvo T o8 BZ. 24 ypagdns I 25 ore de ehaBe τελειωσιν B

§ Eus

HKAGIB
CTZ Jos
Eus

572 APISTEAS

A “- cal 3 / 3 Ν / es \ Ν a“ ε ’
τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς τὸν τόπον, οὗ καὶ τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας
an / a 7
ἐτελέσθη, παρανέγνω πᾶσι, παρόντων Kal τῶν διερμηνευσάντων, οἵ-
“ Ν Ν “ / c xv
τινες μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς Kal παρὰ τοῦ πλήθους ἔτυχον, ὡς ἂν
an / c ἈΝ Ν
μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν παραίτιοι γεγονότες. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸν
΄ A a c ,
Δημήτριον ἀποδεξάμενοι παρεκάλεσαν μεταδοῦναι τοῖς ἡγουμένοις
lal /
αὐτῶν, μεταγράψαντα τὸν πάντα νόμον. ‘Kaas δὲ ἀνεγνώσθη τὰ
val A / ,
τεύχη, στάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς Kal τῶν ἑρμηνέων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ
- ἴω ΄“ ε A 3
τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πολιτεύματος οἵ τε ἡγούμενοι τοῦ πλήθους εἶπον
a \ ho \ ce / ὃ / Ν Ν a > /
Tel καλῶς Kal ὁσίως διηρμήνευται Kal κατὰ πᾶν ἠκριβωμένως,
- ΕἾ ΕἸ , 9 ἊΣ ,ὔ af σ ΕἸ Ν Ν /
καλῶς ἔχον ἐστίν, iva διαμείνῃ ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχοντα, Kal μὴ γένηται
/ a
μηδεμία διασκευή. πάντων δ᾽ ἐπιφωνησάντων τοῖς εἰρη-
/ > aN ὃ / 6 . θὰ εθ > “ 5 δ
μένοις, ἐκέλευσαν διαράσασθαι, καθὼς ἔθος αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, εἴ τις
\ \ lal
διασκευάσει προστιθεὶς ἢ μεταφέρων τι TO σύνολον τών γεγραμ-
\ / a A
μένων ἢ ποιούμενος ἀφαίρεσιν: καλῶς τοῦτο πράσσοντες, ἵνα δια-
Ν
παντὸς ἀένναα καὶ μένοντα φυλάσσηται.
"4 Ἂς Ν ’ὔ “ “ ’ 3 4 .
Προσφωνηθέντων δὲ καὶ τούτων τῴ βασιλεῖ μεγάλως ἐχάρη
Ν Ν / ca > 5 a ΕἼΣ ΟΝ a
τὴν yap πρόθεσιν, ἣν εἶχεν, ἀσφαλῶς ἔδοξε τετελειῶσθαι. παραν-
εγνώσθη δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ πά ai λί ἐξεθαύ Ὶ v
γνώσθη τῷ καὶ πάντα, καὶ λίαν ἐξεθαύμασε τὴν τοῦ
A / x Ν Ν / > “ 4
νομοθέτου διάνοιαν. καὶ πρὸς τὸν Δημήτριον εἶπε Πῶς τηλικούτων
a “ BI ~
συντετελεσμένων οὐδεὶς ἐπεβάλετο τῶν ἱστορικῶν ἢ ποιητικῶν
> “ ΕἸ a“ ἣν, ΔΒ ἣν Ν Ἅ, > Ν ’ὔ
ἐπιμνησθῆναι; ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔφη Διὰ τὸ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν νομοθεσίαν
Ν Ν la , Ν “ 3 ΄ Ν ε Ν A ἴω
καὶ διὰ θεοῦ γεγονέναι: καὶ τῶν ἐπιβαλλομένων τινὲς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
/ an ΕἸ An > , \ QA 5 > ’ὔ’
πληγέντες τῆς ἐπιβολῆς ἀπέστησαν. καὶ γὰρ ἔφησεν ακηκοέναι

Θεοπόμπου, διότι μέλλων τινὰ τῶν προηρμηνευμένων ἐπισφα-

1 καὶ Τα] κατα Z* 6 om δε Eus? | τα] pr ταυτὰ Eus® 9 om καλως
Eus! | και 2°] om I | ακριβως Eus 10 διαμενη Eus! (διαμεν ει Eus® ¥i4) txt
ex Jos confirmatur (διαμεῖναι) | om wy Eus! | γίνηται Eusi 12 εκελευσαν
Jos Eus&*4] εκελευσε (-cev Eus) Ar codd Eus’® | erapac@a Eus | καθω I
καθο A | ἐστιν avtos Eus° 13 μεταφερον GI | om τι Eus® 14 mpac-
σοντος HKA txt codd cett Jos (rparr.) Eus 15 και μενοντα] pevovra
Eus® μενοντες Eusi vid 17 παρανεγνωσθη KBCT Eus] παρεγνωσθη HAGI
19 τηλικουτων]- πραγματων Eus 20 ereBadkero HKBCT Eus] επελα-
Berto AGI | y] οὐδε Eus | ποιητων B Eus Jos ποιητικως HK txt AGICT
22 επιβαλομενων Eus' | om rou Eus? 23 επιβουλης H* AKAGI | εφη-

σαν Eus® 24 Θεοπεμπτου Ar codd txt Jos Eus προερμηνευμενων
HKGIC

Io

15

20

®IAOKPATEI. 573

A “a VA ~
λέστερον ἐκ τοῦ νόμου προσιστορεῖν ταραχὴν λάβοι τῆς διανοίας
A ε a ΄ \ Ν \ + 3 , Ν
πλεῖον ἡμερῶν τριάκοντα κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἄνεσιν ἐξιλάσκεσθαι τὸν
’ % 3 A / , 7, ἣν lal td > 5
θεόν, σαφὲς αὐτῷ γενέσθαι, τίνος χάριν τὸ συμβαῖνόν ἐστι. δὲ
3 , Ἀν ,ὕ “ Ν a 7 ’ὔ >
ὀνείρου δὲ σημανθέντος, ὅτι τὰ θεῖα βούλεται περιεργασάμενος εἰς
“ 5 nw
κοινοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκφέρειν, ἀποσχόμενον δέ, οὕτως ἀποκαταστῆναι.
Χ \ , Ν lal a o “ / > /
καὶ παρὰ Θεοδέκτου δὲ τοῦ τῶν τραγῳδιῶν ποιητοῦ μετέλαβον ἐγώ,
΄,ὔ Vas - , an > , ΕῚ “. ,
διότι παραφέρειν μέλλοντός τι τῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων ἐν TH βίβλῳ
? lal Ν ” > / Ν Ν © / 9
πρὸς τι δρᾶμα τὰς ὄψεις ἀπεγλαυκώθη: καὶ λαβὼν ὑπόνοιαν, ὅτι
Levit A Ν ’ ἣν ’ Ν \
διὰ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτῷ τὸ σύμπτωμα γέγονεν, ἐξιλασάμενος τὸν θεὸν ἐν
MeradaBov δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς,

4 / \ \ ~ ἊΣ /
καθὼς προεῖπον, περὶ τούτων Ta Tapa τοῦ Δημητρίου, προσκυνήσας

“ ε , 3 /
πολλαῖς ἡμέραις ἀποκατέστη.

ἐκέλευσε μεγάλην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν βιβλίων καὶ συντηρεῖν

q , Ν Ν Ν ε a 9 ,
' παρακαλέσας δὲ Kal τοὺς ἑρμηνεῖς, ἵνα παραγίνωνται

ε n
αγνῶς.
Ν 3 ΄ +N > a 5 Ν 5 /
πυκνότερον πρὸς αὐτόν, ἐὰν ἀποκατασταθῶσιν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν,
> Ν A /
δίκαιον yap εἶπε THY ἐκπομπὴν αὐτῶν γενέσθαι: παραγενηθέντας δέ,
ε 4 a a /
ws θέμις, ἕξει αὐτοὺς φίλους, kal πολυδωρίας τῆς μεγίστης τεύξεσθαι
> ΕἸ “ \ Ν Ν Ν ΕἸ Ν > a as ἡ ε ΄
Tap avTov. Ta δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἐκπομπὴν αὐτῶν ἐκέλευσεν ἑτοιμάζειν,
“-“ ra > 7 ’ὔ 7 % Ἂν 5
μεγαλομερῶς τοῖς ἀνδράσι χρησάμενος. ἑκάστῳ γὰρ στολὰς ἔδωκε
ἴω “ /
TOV κρατίστων τρεῖς, καὶ χρυσίου τάλαντα δύο, καὶ κυλίκιον
, \ / “- ΄ 4 Ν \ A
ταλάντου, καὶ τρικλίνου πᾶσαν κατάστρωσιν. ἔπεμψε δὲ καὶ TO
Ἔλεαζα ὰ τῆς € ἧς αὐτῶν ἀργυρόποδας κλίνας δέ ὶ
εαζάρῳ μετὰ τῆς ἐκπομπῆς αὐτῶν ἀργυρόποδας κλίνας δέκα καὶ
N 5 / ’ Ἂ ᾽’ὔ ΄ , Ἂς \
ta ἀκόλουθα πάντα, καὶ κυλίκιον ταλάντων τριάκοντα, Kal στολὰς

΄ Χ ve \ / “Ὁ Χ ’ 3 4
δέκα καὶ πορφύραν καὶ στέφανον διαπρεπῆ καὶ βυσσίνων ὀθονίων

1 προιστορεν HKAGI txt BCT Ἐὺ5] λαβοι Eus] λαβειν Ar codd
2 τριακοντα]ῇ ἃ KA | aveow Ar codd Jos] αἰτησιν Eus 3 om To Eus°®
4 σημανθεντος) μαθοντος Eus 5 de ovrws] woavrws BT de auvtws CZ

6 mapa] ὃ περι 8 οψις C | απεγλαυκωθη Eus A] απεγλυκωθὴ HK A*GI
ἐπεγλυκωθὴ B*CTZ* (-γλαυκ. BOOT Z™S γλαυκωθειὴ Jos) 9 ταῦτ Eus? |

avtw BA‘ Eus] αὐτο cett | om το συμπτωμα Eus 11 προειπε Eusi® |
περι---Δημήτριου em Cobet] περι τουτων τὰ περι του A. Eus περι των (om
των C) του A. Ar codd (ravra παρα του Δ. Jos) 12 συντηρεισθαι Eus°
13 αγνων CTZ* aya B| ros 1 | παραγινονται GIC 14 αποκαταστωσιν

K |[Τουδαιαν] ιδιαν A 15 om yap B 16 ws θεμις εξει] ws θεμις efers H
ὡσαυθις efew ACT (αυθις sup ras et efev ex e€er) | τευξασθαι BCTZ txt cett
Jos 18 μεγαλοπρεπως Καὶ 19 κυλικιν ABT Jos] κυλίδιον cett
22 τριακονταῇ ἃ ΚΑ 23 στεῴφον T

4 Eus

HKAGIB
CTZ Jos

Eus

574 ΑΡΙΣΤΈΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΕΙ͂.

ε Ν - , \ , \ ΄, \ a A ΄

ἱστοὺς ἑκατόν, καὶ φιάλας καὶ τρυβλία καὶ κρατῆρας χρυσοῦς δύο
\ Male »” Ν \ A 7 ᾽ν a

πρὸς ἀνάθεσιν. ἔγραψε δὲ Kal παρακαλῶν, ἵνα, ἐάν τινες TOV

3 “- “Ἢ Ν a Ν

ἀνδρῶν προαιρῶνται πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνακομισθῆναι, μὴ κωλύσῃ" περὶ

cal “ / A Χ 4
πολλοῦ ποιούμενος τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις συνεῖναι, καὶ εἰς τοιούτους

{ Jos τὸν πλοῦτον κατατίθεσθαι δαψιλῶς, καὶ οὐκ εἰς μάταια. .Β

>
Σὺ δέ, καθὼς ἐπηγγειλάμην, ἀπέχεις τὴν διήγησιν, ὦ Φιλόκρατες.
/ \ δ / “ A \ na / “ad /
τέρπειν γὰρ οἴομαί σε ταῦτα, ἢ Ta τῶν μυθολόγων βιβλία. νένευκας
γὰρ πρὸς περιεργίαν τῶν δυναμένων ὠφελεῖν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἐν τούτοις
τὸν πλείονα χρόνον διατελεῖς. πειράσομαι δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν
ἀξιολόγων ἀναγράφειν, ἵνα διαπορευόμενος αὐτὰ κομίζῃ τοῦ βουλή- το

ματος τὸ κάλλιστον ἔπαθλον.

HKAGIB 1 ἰστοὺς Jos] εἰς τους Ar codd | τρυβλια]-Ἑ και σπονδεια Jos 3 προαι-
ae ρουνται Z 4 om και HKGICZ | τοιουτοις I 7 ce] om B* ins Β΄
adnotat wows μαλλον ZS 9 πλειον KGICZ πλειω HA | διατελειν Z |
λοιπα bis scr C 10 κομιΐει GI 11 om το καλλιστον T
CORRIGENDUM

Page 539, line 1. For νόμους. read νομούς

EN Dve iS:

i INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES.
I. INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

ΓΝΤ ΤΟΙΣ

GENESIS

i. 1 ff., 378); 2,327; 440, 459, 468;
Ee S055) 523: 86, 4405. 4.501}. 9;
326; 10, 459; 13f., 1345 27, 53

li. 2, 327, 413, 465; 4, 2153 7, 374

bbl 8. 449; 15, 449, 474; 20, 325>

377
iv. 1, 377, 4453 2, 305; 3f., 472;
7, 446, 465: 8, 243, 442, 4743 21,

3743; 24, 306

vi. 2, 57, 329, 449: 3, 446; 4,
305, 449; 5, 474; 14, 374 f.; 19,
3°7

Wit 923307

viii. 7, 306; 21, 449

ix. 25, 374 f.

x. 13- -18, 22—29, 249

xi. 9, 325

ἘΠῚ 1. 7108: 9; 41, 326

xiv. 13, 325; 14, 4655; 23, 445

Ἐν 1, 305016, 330f.;°9 ἔν, 3783
1155 95. 10, 4705 29, 374

xvi. 14, 478

xvii. 1, 376

Xviii. 12, 374; 24—-26, 134; 25, 52,
9.2

xix. 3, 475

xx 154 Ὁ: τὸ

xxi. 6, 478

xxii. 2, 449

xxiii. 16, 305

πεῖν 101: 227: 20.278

XXV. 6, 324; 27, 329

XXVi. 18, 329

XXvii. 30, 378; 46, 460

XXViii. 13, 307, 375

xxix. 9, 326

S. 5.

XXX. 1; 307; 10}. 256: I 70}:
14 f., 18

Xxxi. 21.. 526; 29, 442; 46 ff., 234

Med, 25 Ὁ. 278} 20,000

Xxxiv,.10; 3255 ΠῚ’. 426

EXKV, 6, 9243.11, 2705016 ff., 1232
17, 27, 307

XXXVi. 1, 307; 33 ff., 257

ΧΧΧΥΙΪ. 3, 445

XXXViii. 9, 306

ΣΧΣΙ͂ΧΣ 1,378

M7325 45; 4220

ΧΙ ὉΠ στ; 13. 200543403045 .20.
378; 56, 442

xiii. 16, 134

My. Ὁ. ἘΠ: ΠΥ (10> 442, 4403. 10.
322

xlv. 16, 308; 34, 18

xIlvi. 28, 378, 391

XIlvii. 31, 445, 459

ΣΙΝ. 14, 445, 466; 17 f., 89

xlix. 3, 305; 3—27, 360; 6, 446;
10, 416, 442, 449, 465, 474; 19,
230; 322,"440

EXODUS

Pith, 2055 125 3207 1; 16).410

ii. 5, 476; 14, 307, 409; 15, 306

111, 7, 308; 14, 327, 446

1ν. 09 205. 105 270.43745. 10; 127:
21, 306

V. 9, 442; 13, 305, 459

Vii. 2, 326, 449; 16, 69

Vili. 8, 306; 21, 449

ix. 3, 371; 7, 306; 22, 449

xii. 8, 475; 23, 329; 26, 449; 40,
327; 43, 326

Xiv. 13, 308; 25, 442

37

578

Index 1.

xv. 1—21, 253 f.; 3, 327; 17, 374;
472; 27, 305

xvi. 15, 377, 446; 23, 4755 24,
305; 36, 465

xvii. 6, 479; 11, 306; 15, 446; 16,
465

xviii. 11, 306

Xix.1, 215; 16 ff., 24, 331 f.

xx. 5, 475; 13—15, 234; 23, 374

xxi. 6, 446

xxiii. 2, 374; 20, 57; 30, 307

xxiv. 10 f., 53, 327

XXV. 1—19, 253; 29, 449; 40, 416

XXVii. 21, 329

XXViii. 15, 449; 26, 326

XXix. 9, 472; 23, 475

Xxx. 1, 475; 6, 442

XxXxi. 7, 329

XXxii. 21. 24, 90; 32, 326, 446

XXxiii. 1—3, 412; 8, 305; 19, 465

XXxiv. 13, 449

xxxv.—xl., 234 ff.

XXXV. 8, 243

XxxvVi. 4, 307; 8—34, 243

Xxxvii. 19, 472; 25—28, 243

Xxxix. 18, 449, 472

ΧΙ 6—8, 11, 243

LEVITICUS
i. 3, 475
iv. 5, 466; 27—29, go
vi. 2, 306
xi. 5, 475; 17, 21; 35, 475
xiii. 31, 442
xvi. 4, 475; 8 ff, 449
Xviii. 5, 375
xix. 7, 327; 13, 305; 23, 374
Xxi. 10, 308
Xxii. 2, 472
=e. 3, 440; 115. 17
BRAY. 7, 327;5,472; 24; 475

NUMBERS

i, 2, 215; 24 ff., 236

lii. 24, 480

iv. 19, 472

v. 2, 375; 15, 475; 28, 479
vi. 22 ff., 236

vii. 15, 326

ix. 10, 307

xi. 2, 305; 9, 306; 25f., 305; 29,

xvi. 5, 322; 21, 472

xxi. 1, 305; 11, 308

xxii. 6, 305

xxiii. 7—10, 332; 19, 466; 21, 459

XXiv. 9, 305; 17, 329, 416, 466; 23,
443; 24, 474

xxv. 8, 476

XXVi. 15 ff., 236

XXVii. 12, 449

XXXV. 2, 308

DEUTERONOMY

i. 17, 372; 22, 307

11. 35, 305

iv. 1—23, 412; 37, 442

v. 17—19, 234; 22, 416

vi. 1—9, 332 f.

Vii. 13, 40; 16, 308, 325

viii. 15, 372; 18, 375

ix. 5, 329

x. 16, 329, 449, 460

xi. 7, 305; 30, 41

xii. 8, 375

xiv. 12—18, 360; 16, 21; 17, 475;
23, 327

Xvii. 18, 215

xix. 4, 479

xx. 19, 446

xxi. 8, 328; 16, 374

xxii. 16, 305; 29, 327

ΣΕΥ. 2, 475; 5, 322

XXViii. 35, 2; 66, 466

xxix. 18, 479

xxx. 4, 2; 20, 372

xxxi. 18, 308

xxxii. 1—43, 253 f.; 4, 375; 6,
416 f.; 7, 466; 10, 305; 39, 3725
43, 243, 305

xxxiii. 1—44, 253 f.; 12, 476

JOSHUA

iv. 24, 327

v. 2, 446; 3, 466

ix. 3 ff., 236 f.

X. 12—14, 333; 42, 476
xi. 10—14, 73

Index 1.

579

xiv. 12, 328

XV. 59, 442

xix. 47 f., 244

xx. 4—6, 244

xxi. 36 f., 42 a—d, 244
xxiv. 30a—33b, 244

JUDGES

i. 19, 324; 36, 446

Vv. 8, 480; 15, 45; 16, 459; 28—30,
3331.

Vi. 2 f.,.306; 18, 308

Vili. 3, 305; 7, 324; 13, 446

ix. 26, 305 ; 42, 53

xii. 6, 446

xiv. 15, 443

KV. 14 ff., 446 f.; 19, 476

Xvi. 13 f., 443

XViili. 30, 447

xix. 18, 443; 22, 449

RUTH

li. 2, 306; 9, 14, 305; 22, 306
iii. 1, 306

1 KINGDOMS

id, 302, 324; δ; 326; 8,-306; 14,
327; 20, 377; 24, 26, 308, 324,
442; 28, 245

jot 0 252 1... 6, 472; .9 ἘΣ
245 f., 409; 12, 449; 29, 321; 33,
442

iii. 6, 308; 13, 442; 14,17, 308

Ἐν 4425; 10, 321

Υ͂. 6, 327 f., 443

Wa. 14, 18, 3255.19) 1443; 20/325

Vii. 4, 325

ix. 22, 3773 24, 476; 25, 443

xX. 5, 447; 14, 305; 21, 443; 22,
308

Kili. 2, 322; 3, 443; 8, 321, 443

xiii. 20, 459; 21, 447

Σίν. 18, 41 f., 443

XV. 22, 417; 23, 41

XVii.—xXviii., 245 f.

Xvii. 37—43, 334 f.; 47, 475

xix. 13, 377

xx. 19, 443; 30, 447

xxi. 7, 321

xxii. 9, 377

xxiii. 11—12, 246; 14, 325
XXVii. 10, 447
XXxi. 10, 447

2 KINGDOMS

i. 18, 449; 21, 447
ii. 2, 308

111. 39, 305

iv. 6, 377; 443

vii. 12, 302

viii. 5, 306; 7, 378
x. 14, 305

Sais 21 446

Xvii. 8, 443

xix. 42, 405

xxii. 2—6, 316; 3, 306
xxiv. 6, 443; 15, 446

3 KINGDOMS

ii. 35 a—o, 46 a—l, 247

iy. 17. 237

v. 13, 475

vil. 17, 475; 48, 475

viii. 17 f., 237; 39, 472; 53 a, 247

ΣΧ. 23—33, 238 f.

xi. 3—8, 239; 34, 451

xii. 24 a—z, 248 f.

xiii. 12, 447

Xiv. 6, 305; 25, 3 f.

Xvi. 7, 11, 26, 43, 51, 253; 28 a—h,
249

xvii. 1, 444

XViii. 22—28, 83 Ὁ

xix. 14 ff., 401

XX., Xxi., 239

xx. 10, 12, 39 f.

xxi. 10—13, 35

xxii. 38, 466

4 KINGDOMS

1. 2 f., 447; 18 a—d, 249

il. TV1—18, 335 f.; 14, 324,476
v. 7, 306

vi. 5, 253

Vili. 13, 447

Xvi. 9, 41

EVIL’ G6, 3; 15, 45; 29, 307
XViii. 17—xx. 19, 316

xix. 25, 41

37—2

580

Index 7.

xxiii. 21—24, 36, 39 f.; 22 f., 447;
24—27, 31—33, 249

xxiv. 14 ff., 3

XxvV. 11, 21f., 3; 20 ff., 275

1 CHRONICLES

i. 10—16, 17 b—23, 249; 44 ἴ., 257
xxi. 12, 321; 15, 305

2 CHRONICLES
i. 3, 308
11. 8, 475
iii. 1, 306
iv. 11, 475 :
xii δ f., 3
XX. 37, 305
ΧΧΙΧ. 26, 253
Xxxlii. 18, 253; 19, 444
XXXV. 10, 305; 19 a—d, 249
XXXVi. 2 a—c, 5 a—d, 249

1 ESDRAS
i. 1, 266
ii. 3f., 378; 9, 48; 1—25, 266; 21,
378

iii. 1. ν. 70, 266
iv. 7—24, 266; 41, ib.
xi. 2—8, 378

2 ESDRAS
xi. 9, 2
xv. 15, 327
xix. 30, 305
Xxi., Xxii., 249

4 ESDRAS

xiii. 39 ff., 3
xiv. 44, 221

PSALMS
i, 1—5, 413
ii. 11 f., 459; 12, 466
iii. 4, 326
iv. 7, 466
v. tit., 321; 10, 251
vi. 6, 251, 466
vii. 12, 460
Vili. 4, 449
ix.—cxlvii., 239 f.
ix. tit., 466 f.; 17, 251

xiii. 1—3, 3 a—c, 251 f.

xiv. 9, 472

Xv. 2, 444; 9, 460

Xvi. 9, 326

Xvii. 3 ff., 316 f., 326; 45, 413

xxi, 2, 306; 7, 407, 467; 9, 4093
17, 321, 413, 444; 30, 467

XXV. 6, 472

XXVi. 13, 444

XXVii. 9, 472

XXX. 6, 472

xxxi. 1, 407

XxXxii. 6, 467

Xxxiii. 12 ff., 399, 407, 409

XXXIV. 2, 472

XxXv. 1, 251

xxxvi. 7, 460; 10 ff., 328; 35, 56;
36, 407

XXxix. 7, 417, 479

1%, 3375.18, 255

xli. 3, 305; 6, 444

ΧΙ, 3, 472; δ. 3225 16, 52

Xliv. 1, 467; 117, 457

xlv. 1--3, 62 f.; 2, 33

Xlviii. 12, 444

xlix. 10, 15, 417; 13, 21,
21 f., 407; 24, 53, 305

L., 296; 12, 471; 14 -440, 4755
11, 407

111. 8, 305; 6, 308

lv. 1, 475

viii. 6, 472

lz: 3; 400

Ixvii. 12—14, 18—22, 99; 26, 475

Ixviii. 3, 52; 27, 444

1xxi. 5, 444; 18—20, 255

Ixxii. 3, 475; 28, 306

lxxv. 7, 460

Ixxvii. 2, 397; 3, 372

Ixxviii. 2, 25; 3, 372; 8, 4725 70,
253

Ixxix. 2, 472

1xxx. 4, 475

lxxxvi. 4 f., 66, 467

Ixxxvii. 6, 467; 21, 399

Ixxxviii. δ, 2555 8, 459; 21, 407

xc. 6—13, 37, 40, 460

xci. 4, 475; 5—10, 38, 40; 18; 467

xcv. 5, 467

xevi. J; 4675 7, 242

C. 5, 444

395 5

Index I. 581

οἱ. 27, 417 v.17 ff., 407
Cv. 48, 255 Vi. 5, 305
evi. 20, 467 f. ix. 9, 449
ΟΥ̓. 5, 467; 29, 475 X. 4, IOI
cix. 1—4, 305, 336, 409, 413, 417, Xiv. 12, 476

468 Xviii. 20, 460
exii. 5f., 472 xix. 17, τοῦ 18, 321; 23—27,
exiii. 11, 417 ΖΒ, bs, 395 £
εν. 3, 460 XXi. 27, 460
CXVii. 25, 307 XXVi. δ, 460; 14, 52
ΟΧΧ. 8, 472 XXvii. 12, 329

CXxXViii. tit., 2; 8, 408; 15 f., 449
CXXxXix. 4, 251
GH. 22) Ὁ,

PROVERBS

i. 28, 308

11. 18, 449

ib, 206; 11’: 257% 12,. 407, 409;
15, 308; 16, 255; 22 a, 28 e, 255,
306

iv. 27 a—b, 255

vi. 8 a—C, 255

Wil. 1a, °255

Vill. 21 a, 255; 22 ff., 57, 386f.,
468, 471; 30f., 336 f.

ix. 12 a—c, 18 a—c, 255; 18, 460

x. 10, 444

xii. lla, 13a, 255

XV. 18a, 255, 306

Xvi. 17, 255, 306

XVii. 6a, 255

XVili. 22 a, 255

xxi. 16, 460; 25, 407

xxii. 8a, 255; 20, 468; 28, 61

ΧΧΙ͂Υ.- xxxi., 240 f.

XXiv. 22 a—c, 255

xxvi. 11, 255, 400

XXVii. 20 a, 21 ἃ, 255

Xxxi. 26, 255

ECCLESIASTES
i. 1, 215
ii. 17, 309
iii. 1—8, 360
iv. 9, 52
vii. 19, 460

ii. 9, 256
iv. 21, 407

xxix. 1, 308

XxX. 13, 329; 30, 475

XXXViii. 26, 302

ΣΙ. 14, 468, 472

xlii. 7, 101; 17 a, b—e, 25, 256 f.

WISDOM

1 15.3.2

Vind, 312

Vii. 24, 268

viii. 7, 20, 268

ix. 15, 268

X. 6, 475

xi. 4, 372; 17, 268

ait Θ᾽ 172

xv. 10, 372

XVi. 22, 371

Xvill. 4, 305; 24, 475
SIRACH

prol., 217, 269 f.

Vi. 26, 475

xx. 19, 475

xxi. 4, 475

xlix. 10, 217

1. 27, 269

ESTHER

JUDITH

ν..15...2

vii. 10, 305

viii. 6, 272
25,479

ΣΧ. 2 ff., 272; 5, 475
xi. 13, 272

ἘΠῚ 7, 272

582 Index 1.

TOBIT v. 1—9, 253; 26, 414

1. 14.55.5 vi. 9 f., 398
γ. 15, 308 vii. 14, 30, 469, 474
xi. 14, 475 viii. 14, 401
ix. 1f., 396; 6, 460,. 472; 8; 3225
HOSEA 14, 32
.: ΣΧ. 23, 409
xii. 4, 468 xi. 4, 417
AMOS xiii. 9, ἊΣ
a ii. 13 °
ii. 13, 476 a anh pe
v.26 8 eae
ix. 6, 468; 11 f., 399 πος
MICAH xxviii. 11, 402; 16, 399
iv., 316 f. xxix. 4, 52; 10, 401; 11, 18, 91; 13,
ν. 1—4, 91, 338; 396 wae Cae
ὙΠῸ 19,41] XXxiii. 24, 305
JOEL XXXVi. 1—xxxix. 8, 316
ii. 25, 471 XXXViii. 8, 449; 10---20, 253; 21,
475
JONAH xl. 2, 395; 3, 395, 398
ΡΣ Ἢ a. 25. 717
li. 3—10, 253 xliv. 28, 399 ‘
NAHUM xlv. 1, 14, 469
iii. 8, 322 ΧΗΣ. 6, 2
lii. 5, 414
HABAKKUK lili, 1—12, 410; 8, 469; 4, 30753
ii. 11, 468 5, 7, 413
iii. 1—19, 253; 2, 468; 3, 417, 449; liv. 8, 476; 15, 469
13, 56 lv. 3, 398
Ivii. 15, 472
ZEPHANIAH lviii. 6, 395
i. 10, lix.. 72, 25x
449 1x. 17, 469
“ ZECHARIAH Ixi. 1 ff, 395; 12, 413
iil. 8, 474 Ixii. 11, 395
vi. 12, 468 lxiii. 1, 9, 469
xi. 7, 322; 13, 307 lxiv. 3, 401
xii. 10, 48, 398 IXV. 1, 417
xiii. 7, 413 lxvi. 2, 408
MALACHI JEREMIAH
4i. 3, 4445 11, 46; 13, 51 ii. 12, 413; 23, 326; 26, 307
iii. 1, 395, 408 Vv. 4, 305
vi. 23, 321; 29, 444
ISAIAH Vii. 16, 302
i. 17, 417; 22, 408; 29, 305 ix. 23 f., 245, 409; 29, 479
i, στὸν 19) 57. xi. 15, 444; 19, 469

iii. 9, 468 f. xii. 15, 399

Index TI. 583
Xiii. 14, 2 ix’ 1. 518
Xv. 4, 2 x. 20, 48
XViii. 15, 305 xii. 1—-4, 339; 2, 2; 7, 48; 9, 417
Xix. 13, 475 δ
xxv.—li., 241 f. 54 f., 261
XXvV1. 15, 322; 25, 321
XXXIV. 17, 2 BEL
xxxvi. 1, 275 2, 475
ae εἰ irae 338 f.; 37, 305; 1 MACCABEES
ezine 19) 472 1. 4, 27
xl. 14- 26, 44 vil. 17, 25
xliii. 31, 417 xill. 30, 277

Xv. 23,

xXlvi. 4—13, 45
xlix. 19, 476
ΠΡ ΤΕ 1

BARUCH

iv. 36—V. 9, 283
ν- Ὁ. 2171: 50: 275

LAMENTATIONS
1:51: 259
iv. 20, 469, 474

EZEKIEL
iii. 15, 460
vii. 3—9, 242
viii. 10, 476
ix. 9, 307
xi. 21, 460
xiii. 18, 305, 449
Xvi. 21, 305
xx. 14, 302
xxii. 11, 305
Xxxiii. 14, 407
XXXIV. 4, 414
Xl. 17, 475

DANIEL
i. 2, 48
ii. 35, 48
111. 26, 45; 52—90, 253
v. 23, 48

Vi. 22, 47, 411
wil-.9,.40;5 10, 417, 497; 13; 48, 575
21, 48; 23, 26 f.

fi
Xvi. 23 f., 277

2 MACCABEES

3 MACCABEES
M2472
vi. 18, 280
Vii. 42, 280

4 MACCABEES
i. 18, 280 f.
1x2 9:.7.0951
xiii. 15, 281
ΣΧΥ͂. 9. 291
Xvii. 5, 281
XViii. 14 ff., 372; 23, 281

MATTHEW

ii. 6, 396

iv. 15 f., 396

V.'S ff.,:451 5,18, 320
vi. 6, 451

vill. 17, 397

x. 21, 35, 451

xii. 18, 395

xii. 35, 397

XV. 8, 440

ΧΧΙ. 4, 3053 33, 451
xxiv. 30, 48

XXVi. 64, 48

XXvil. 9 f., 397; 32, 7

584

MARK
i. 2f., 395
vii. 6, 409 f.; 32, 451
ix. 48, 451
xiv. 62, 48
Xv. 29, 451

LUKE
iv. 18 ff., 356, 395
Vii. 27, 395
XVili. 20, 234
XXiv. 44, 217

JOHN
i. 22, 398; 51, 451
vii. 35, 2
xii. 40, 398
xix. 37, 398

ACTS
ii. 9, 104; 10, 7; 20, 33, 215
wi..9, 7, 104
Vii. 43, 398
viii. 32 ff., 398
xi. 20,
ἘΠῚ. 1, .75.. 15,, 3505.22, 208," 30,

215; 34, 398

XV. 16 ff., 399; 21, 356
XViil. 24, 104

JAMES

1 PETER

i. 24, 399
ii. 6, 3993 9, 451
iii. 10 ff., 399; 14, 451
2 PETER
ii. 22, 400
ROMANS
iii. 13—18, 252; 20, 400

ix. 9, 17, 27, 400; 25, 215; 33, 401
x. 16, 215

I[ndex 7.

xi. 2 ff., 8, gor
xii. 17, 451
xiii. 9, 234
xiv. 11, 400
Xv. 11, 215

1 CORINTHIANS
ii. 9, 401
xiv. 21, 402
Xv. 54 f., 48, 401

2 CORINTHIANS
iii. 3 ff., 451
viii. 21, 451

EPHESIANS
ΠΤ, 45%
iv. 8, 25, 400
Vv. 31, 400
vi. 3, 400

PHILIPPIANS
ch A ΕΠ

HEBREWS
i. 7, 12, 402
11. 12, 402
iii. 9, 10, 402 f.
vi. 8, 451
viii. 8 ff., 402
x. 5 ff., 37, 402 f., 479 j
xi. 21, 402; 22, 215; 33, 48; 36,
217
xii. 15, 402, 479

APOCALYPSE

LN DEX Ph

A, 125 f., 352, 489 f.5 a, 364

Abbas, Mar, 115

Abbott, T. K., 144, 456

Abbreviations in MSS.
126, 364 f.

Accidence of O.T. Greek, 302 ff.

Acts, quotations in the, 388, 398 f.

Africanus, correspondence of Origen
with, 60 f., 255, 260f.

Akiba ben Joseph, R., 32, 434, 440

Akhmim codex, the, 283 ff.

Alexander, policy of towards the
Jews, 4 f.

Alexandria, its Church, 104, 413;
dialect, 289 f.; population, 291;
libraries and museums, τὸ ἔ., 16f.,
22 f., 293; writers, 293, 312,
369 ff.

Alexandrine MS., 125 f., 352, 489 f.

Aldine edition of Lxx., 173, 486

Ambrosian Octateuch, 135 f., 348

Amphilochius, 205

Andreas Asolanus, 173

Anonymi a@zal. Timothei et Aquilae,
18, 31 ff., 206

Apocalypse, use of LXX. in, 392;
Theodotionic readings in, 48

Apocrypha, 224 f., 265 ff., 281 ff.;
vocabulary of the, 310 ff.; ‘apo-
crypha,’ 423

Apostolic canons, the, 219

Aquila, 31 ff., 53, 458, 47

Arabic version, 110 f.; colloquial-
isms in LXX., 319

Aramaic, 8, 319

Arian controversy, use of LXx. in
the, 470 f.

Aristarchus, 69 ff.

Aristeas, 25, 369 ff.

‘ Aristeas,’ letter of, 2, 10 ff., 371,
478; accepted as genuine in the
ancient Church, 13 f.; introduc-
tion to, 501 ff.; text of, 519 ff.

Aristobulus, 1 f., 12 f., 369 ff.

ΘΕ.

Armenian Version, 118 ff.

Artapanus, 3609 ff.

Ashburnham House, fire at, 133

Asterisk, 70 ff.

Athanasius, 125, 203 f., 431; see
Pseudo- Athanasius

Athias, Hebrew Bible of, 343

Augustine of Hippo, 9, 88 f., 211,
223, 464

ἀγάπη, ἀγάπησις, 456
ἀκρίβασμα, -μός, 45
ἀλαβάρχης, ἀραβάρχης, 6
ἁλληλουιά, 250 f.

ἅλυσις χρυσῆ, 362
ἀνάγνωσμα, ἀναγνωστής, 358
ἀντιβάλλειν, 77

᾿Αριστάρχεια σήματα, 69 ff.
ἀρχή, 558

B, 126 ff., 348 ff., 375, 486 ff.
Baber, H., 126

Babylonian Targum, 3

Barnabas, Ep. of, 48, 411 ff.
Barnes, W. E., 287

Baruch, book of, 48, 274 ff.

Bel, 260 f.

Ben Asher, R., 434

Ben Naphtali, R., 434

Bessarion, Cardinal, his MSS., 132,

173

‘Biblical Greek,’ 456

Blunders in the version of Lxx.,
220 f.

Bobbio Sacramentary, 213

Bodleian Genesis, 134 f.; Psalter,
141; fragment of Bel, 146; of
Ezekiel, 148

Bomberg Bible, 343

Brooke, A. E., 135, 189, 489

Burkitt, Fi; 34, 41; 47; _82, 03;
111; 488 f.

Buxtorfs, the, 436

586

C, 128 f., 490

Caesarea, 74 f., 357

Caius Psalter, 162

Cambridge edition of Lxx., 188 ff.,
290, 496

Canticles, the book, 216, 360

Canticles, the Ecclesiastical, 141 f.,
B53 1.

Capitulation in MSS. of Lxx.,
351 ff.; in the versions, 360 f,

Cappellus, L., 436

capsae, 225

Carafa, Card. Ant., 174 ff.

Carthage, 88, 214, 493

Cassiodorius, 211 f.

catena aurea, 361 f.; c. Nicephori,
362 f.; catenae, 361 ff.

Catharine de’ Medici, 129

Catholic Epistles, quotations in,
389, 399 f.

Cells, story of the, 14

Ceriani, A., 39, 80, 108, 113, 496

Chapter-divisions, 342 ff.

Chase, F. H., 470

Cheyne, T. K., 4, 240

Chigi MS., 47 ff., 166, 348

‘Chronicles,’ 216; the book, 249

Church, use of the LxXx. in the
Ancient, 27, 87, 433, 462 ff.

cistae, 225

Citation, formulae of, 382, 408, 412;
citations of LXx. in N.T.: see
New Testament

Claromontane list, 213 f., 279, 346 ff.

Clement of Rome, 406 ff.; of Alex-
andria, 13, 369 f., 426 ff.

Cleodemus, 370

Coislin Octateuch, 140, 353 f.

Colometry, 346

Commentaries, 361, 429 ff.

Complutensian Polyglott, the, 171 ff.,
486

Concordance to
Oxford, 290, 314

Constantinople, 85

Controversial use of the 1,ΧΧ., 470f.

Conybeare, Εν C., 34, 118 f.

‘Coptic,’ 105

Cornill, C. H., 242, 486 f.

Corruptions of the text of Lxx.,
early, 478 ff.

the. LXX..;. |-the

I[ndex 17.

Cotton Genesis, 132 ff.

Critical text of the Lxx., method of
arriving at a, 401 ff.

cucurbita, 464

Cursive MSS., 148 ff.

Cyprian, 88 ff.. 92, 97, 428

Cyprus, 10

Cyrene, Jewish settlement at, 7;
Cyrenian source of 2 Macc., 278

Cyril of Jerusalem, 203 f.; C. of
Alexandria, 231; C. and Metho-
dius, 120; C. Lucar, 125

καθίσματα, 359

καλλιγράφοι, 73

κανόνες (ψαλμῶν), 125, 359

κερέαι, 320

κιβωτοί, 225

Kw, 199

κοινή, ἣ, διάλεκτος, 2943; ἔκδοσις, 68,
8ο, 481, 493

κόμματα, 64, 344 ff.

κῶλα, 64, 344 ff.

Xt περιεστιγμένον, 71

D, 132 ff.; A, 146

Damascus, John of, 207 f., 223

Daniel, book of, 43 f., 46 ff., 113 f.,
260 ff., 311, 316, 356, 417, 421 ff.

Decalogue, the, 234 f.

Deissmann, G. A., 21

Demetrius of Phalerum, 2, 11, 18 f.,
293; D...the. Hellenist, a7,
369 f.; D. Ixion, 289

Desiderata, 289 f., 495 f.

Deuteronomy, the book, 215

Dialect of Alexandria, 289 ff.; dia-
lects of the Egyptian versions,
05 ff.

Dillmann, A., 10g

Dispersion, the Greek, 2 f.; the
Eastern, 3; loyalty of the, 7 f.

Distribution of Lxx. MSS., 123 f.

Doctrine, Christian, its terminology
partly derived from LXx., 473 f.

Dogmatic interest detected in LXX.,

327
Dorotheus, 81
‘Double books,’ 220
Doublets, 325

Index 71.

587

Driver, 5: R., 68,.234 ff., 246, 321,

429, 441, 481, 489 ;
Dublin fragments of Isaiah, 144

Aanr, 480

diac ropa, 2

διορθοῦν, διορθοῦσθαι, 77
δόξα, 359

δωδεκαπρόφητον, τό, 123, 206

ἘΠ 1245 ἘΠ 53

Ebedjesu, 208 f.

Ecclesiastes, the book, 316

Ecclesiasticus, the book, 2609 ff.

Editions of Greek O.T., 171 ff. ; of
particular books, 190 ff.

Egypt, early settlements of Jews in,
3 f.; evangelisation of, 104 f.

Egyptian versions, the, 104 ff.;
recension of LXxX., 78 ff.; words
I EX 5, 21

Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, R., 440

Emmanuel Psalter, 164

Enoch, book of, 110, 283 f.

Ephraemi codex rescriptus, 128 f.,
490

Epiphanius, 31 f., 66 ff., 204 f., 431

Esdras, the Greek, 48 f., 265 ἢ,
310; fourth book of, 110, 285

Esther, the Greek, 20, 25, 75, 229,
257. ff.

Ethiopic version, the, τος f.

Euergetes II., 24, 270, 280

Eupolemus, 24 f., 369 f.

Eusebius, 64, 66, 77, 125

Exodus, book of, 215, 234 ff., 243

Ezekiel, the poet, 569 ff.

Ezra-Nehemiah, 25, 220, 265 ff.

ἑβδόμη ἑρμηνεία, ἣ, 55, 82, 85
"EBpatos, ὁ, 56

εἰκοσιδύο, Ta, 281
ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον, TO, 123
ἐκκλησία, 317, 456
ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἔκδοσις, 80
ἐκλογαί, 361

ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος, ἢ, 204
ἐναλλάττειν, 55

ἐνδιάθηκα, τά, 281
ἐξηγήσεις ἐρανισθεῖσαι, 361
ἔξω, τά, 281

ἐπικατασκευάζειν, 65
ἐπιτομαὶ ἑρμηνειῶν, 361
εὐαγγέλιον, 456
Εὐσεβίου, τό, 77

By ΙΓ. 34010.

Fayiim, the, 7, 291

Festival in commemoration of the
completion of the LXX., 13

Field, F., 41, 46, 82f., 458

Formula consensus eccl. Helv., 436 f.

Formulae of citation, 382, 408, 412

Fourth Gospel, quotations in the,
388, 398

Fragments, uncial, still unworked,
146 ff.

G, 72f., 78, 137f.; G, 234, 485 ff.;
P46

Genesis, the book, 215, 234, 243

Genizah, the Cairo, 34

Georgian version, the, 120

Ginsburg, C. D., 431

Gothic version, the, 117 f.

Grabe, JH; 125 1.,.193 fi-

Graeco-Latin MSS., 141 f.

Graecus Venetus, 56 ff.

Graetz, E.,.17

Grammar of LXX., proposed, 290

Greek versions of the O.T.: before
LXX., 1 £; "he τῆν χα Ὁ t-sof.cent.
li, A.D., 30 ΠΡ 457 ff.; mediaeval,
56 ff.

Greek of LXX., 9, 280 ff-

Greek, modern, affinity of LXx.
Greek to, 309

Gregory of Nazianzus, 205

Grotta Ferrata palimpsest of the
Prophets, 146

Grouping of books, 216 ff.; internal
order of groups, 226 ff.

Gwynn, J., 48, 50

nts, 3

ἘΠῚ 1581:

Hadrian, 31 f.

Haggada, 327 f.

Hagiographa, date of the Greek,
24 f.; distribution in the Greek

588

Bible, 218, 228 f.; inferior position
assigned to, 318

Halacha, 327

Haphtaroth, 343

Harms, J. R., 146 f., 274, 282, 345 ff,

411

Hatch, E., 256, 328, 406 ff., 428 f.,
452, 455 ff., 460

Headings to chapters, 353 ff.

Hebraica veritas, 68, 86, 435

Hebrew MSS. of the Lxx., 22,
319 ff.; H. column of the Hexapla,
65,67; mediaeval H. scholars, 435;
revival of Hebrew learning, 435 f. ;
text, history of the official He-
brew, 319 f., 438 ff.; diverse
renderings of the same H. words,
317, 328 f.; departure of Lxx.
from traditional H. text, 440 ff.

Hebrews, Ep. to the, quotations in,

| 391, 402

hedera, 464

‘Hellenist,’ ‘ Hellenistic,’ 294 f.;
LXx. the Hellenistic Bible, 29,
370 ff.

Heptapla, the, 66 f., 113

LHeptateuchus, 227

Hermas, 47, 411

Hesychius, 78 ff.; Hesychian text,
$0,107 fh, .144:,.,450.8., 482,
486 ;

Hexapla, 61 ff., 74 ff., 113 f., 482 f.;
Hexaplaric recension, 67 ff., 76 ff.,
481 ff.; Hexaplaric texts, 108 ff.,
III, 112 ff., 119, 138, 140, 148 ff.,
482

Hilary of Poitiers, 210, 471

Hippolytus, 277, 424 ff.

Hody, H., 15

Holmes, R., 185 ff.

Hort, F: J. A.; 81, 91 f.,.189,. 257 £2,
300, 486 ff., 491

Howorth, H., 267

Hypolemniscus, 7% f.

Hyvernat, H., 106, 111

it local, 324

1, ΤᾺΣ
Jacob of Edessa, 116
Jamnia, 320, 439 f.

,

Index 77.

Jashar, book of, 246

Ignatius, 413 f.

Jebb, R. C., 294, 309

Jeremiah, book of, 241 ff., 259; Ep.
of, 274 f.

Jerome, 9, 14, 23, 34» 40, 74, 76 f.,
89, 98 ff., 273, 277, 435» 464

Jews in Egypt, 3 ff.; Jewish order
of O.T. Canon, 200; Jews
wrongly charged with corrupting
text of LXX., 424, 479

Infinitive of purpose, 306

Innocent I., 211

Inspiration claimed for LXX., 14,
462 f.

Interpretation of O.T., 326 f.; use
of LxXx. for the, 445 ff.; patristic
int. based on LXX., 463 ff.

Interpolations in text of 1,ΧΧ., 423 f.

Job, book of, 43 f., 69, roo f., 108,
228, 255 ff., 318, 337, 480

Josephus, 12 f., 26, 217, 220, 279 f.,
298 f., 376 ff.

Joshua ben Chananya, R., 32, 440

John of Damascus, 207 f.

Irenaeus, 9, 30, 42, 49, 414 ff.;
I. (Minutius Pacatus), 289

Isidorus, 212

Jubilees, book of, 110, 285

Judges, book of, 215 ff., 316, 333f.,
488 f.

Judith, book of, 103, 222 ff., 229,
272 f.

Junilius, 207

Justin, 30, 417 ff., 464, 479

Justinian, 33

ἰδιόγραφος (ψαλμός), 125, 252 ἴ.
ἱστορικόν, τό, 205

Κ, 139, 3495 354 f.

Kaisariyeh, 75

Kennedy, H. A. A., 88, 280 ff., 296,
452 f.

Kenyon, F. G., 130, 225, 487

Kimchi, D., 57

Kingdoms, books of, 214 ἢ; 1 K.,
245f.; 3K., 237 ff., 246 ff; ge

249
Kirkpatrick, A. F., 318 ff., 441
Klostermann, E., 58, 132, 353

Index 77.

L, 139 .

Lagarde, ἘΞ de; τοῦ; 218i4.5.,121,
188, 206, 255, 442, 483 ff., 494
Lamentations, book of, 226 ff., 259,

360
Langton, Stephen (Archbp), 343
Laodicene canons, 209, 282
Latin versions, 88 ff., 493
Lections, lectionaries, 168 ff., 343,
6 ff.

Lee, F., 183
Leipzig fragments of Octateuch,
139

lemniscus, 71 f.

Leontius, 207 f., 218

Leontopolis, 8

Lexicography, 290, 302 ff., 310;
lexicon of LXX., proposed, 290

Lightfoot, J. B. (Bp), 105

Libraries ‘of Alexandria, rof., 16 ff.,
228, 293

Library of Pamphilus, 75

Literature, 10, 27 f., 53, 76, 103,
Fee, Pid, F175) 49 f:, 125, 170,
194, 230, 262ff., 285 ff., 314, 340f.,
365 f., 379 ἴ., 404 f, 432, 438,
461, 477, 496f.

Liturgical notes in titles of the
Psalms, 250 f.

Liturgies, the ancient, use of the
Bex ὑπο 470008.

London papyrus fragments of Psalter,
142 1.

Dacian, 81 ff.,- 395 £5. 483. ff;
Lucianic texts, 93, 116 ff, 121,
148 ff., 379, 395, 403, 482, 486

Ludovicus de Vives, 15

Λουκιανός, 80, 365

M, 78, 140, 352 ff. 5 fal, 234
Maccabees, books of, 276 ff., 312 f.,
2
ἜΣ ΟΣ ΕΝ words, 201 f.
Mahaffy, J. P., 5 ff., 21 ff., 279 f.,
292

Malchas, 370
Malchion, 81
Manetho, 17
Marchalianus, cod.,

144 f.

2) Oy \EOBy

589

Masius, Andreas, 113

Massora, Massoretic text, 234 ff.,
322, 434 ff.

Materials at the disposal of the
critical editor, 491 f.

McLean, N., 119, 135, 189, 191, 489

Melito, 203, 221

Mercati, G., 62

Mesrop, 118, 120

Metaphors in LXX., 329

Methodius and Cyril, 120 f.

Methurgeman, 3, 20

metobelus, 7% f.

Minutius Pacatus, 289

Moabite stone, the, 320 f.

Mommsen, Th., 5, 8, 212 f., 347

Montfaucon, B. de, 136

Morinus, J., 436; P., 181 f.

Moses bar-Cephas, 111; M. of
Khoren, 118, 120

Muratorian Fragment, 268

Museum, the Alexandrian, 16f., 293

MSS: Gf ἘΣ ΧΟ uncial, 2 1:
cursive, 148 ff.; notation of,
122 ff.; grouping of books in,
123; distribution of, 123 f.; dis-
placements in, 131, 271

Μακκαβαϊκά, τά, 222
Μωσαϊκά, τά, 206

N, 131

Nathan, R. Isaac, 343

Nestle, E., 112, 127, 133, 169, 181,
187 f., 274, 319, 331, 410

New Testament, the: use of Lxx.,
26, 381 ff.; tables of quotations
from LXxX., 382 ff.; number of
quotations, 386, 391 f.; discussion
of passages quoted, 392 ff.; Lxx.
indispensable to the study of the
N.T., 450 ff. ; vocabulary of N.T.,
how far indebted to 1,ΧΧ., 452 ff.

Nicephorus, stichometry of, 208 f.,
346 ff.; catena of, 186, 362 f.

Nicomedia, 85

Nicopolis, 55

Notation of MSS., 122 f.

Notes at end of Job, 256 f.

Number of books in O.T. canon,
219 ff.

590

Numerals confused, 321
Nav7, 480

O, 144

obelus, 70 ff.

Octapla, the, 66 f.

‘Odes,’ the nine, 254

Old Latin version, the, 88 ff., 493

Olophernes, 272

Origen, 30, 34, 46 f., 49, 53 f.,
59 ff.5°77, 209, 222, 242, 356 f.,
429 f., 435, 464, 480

Order of books in Jewish lists, 200 ;
in uncial Bibles, 201 f.; in patristic
lists, 203 ff.; internal order of
groups, 226 ff.; order of contents
of books, 231 ff.

ὀκτασέλιδον, τό, 66

ὀκτάτευχος, ἢ, 123

ὁράσεις (in Isaiah and Daniel), 360
᾿Ωριγένης, ᾧ, 72; 77» 365

ΡΣ 964

Pachymius, 79

Pagnini, S., 343

Palaeography, Hebr., 320f.; Greek,
364

Palestinian Syriac version, 114 f.

Palimpsest MSS., 34ff., 128f., 138f.,
145 ff.

Palladius, 50

Pamphilus, 76 ff.

Papyrus MSS., 142, 146, 225, 229;
‘transition to vellum,’ effect of,
229 f.

Parashahs, 342 f.

Paris uncial Psalter, 143

Parsons, J., 185

Passages in LXX. discussed, 330 ff.

Patristic quotations, 406 ff.; texts,
editions of, 406, 492; comment-
aries, 430 ff.

Paul of Tella, 112 f.

Pauline Epistles,
389 ff., 400 ff.

Pearson, J. (Bp), 457) 477

Pentapla, 67

Pentateuch, Greek, the original
LXX., 23; Samaritan, 436 ff.

quotations in,

L[ndex 77.

Peshitta, the, 112, 116

Pesukim, 342

Peter, Gospel of, 50

Petersburg, St, palimpsest of Num-
bers, 138

Pharisaic influence in LXX., 17,
281, 283

Philadelphus, 10 f., 16 f.

Phileas of Thmuis, 79

Philo, 12 f., 298, 372 ff.,° 478 f3
the poet, 369

Philometor, 17

Philopator, 279

Philoxenus of Mabug, 115

Phrynichus, 296 f.

Points, the Hebrew, 321 f.

Polycarp of Smyrna, 414;
chorepiscopus, I15

Polyhistor, 369

Printed editions of LXx., 171 ff.

Prologue to Sirach, the, 24, 300, 319

Proper names, 304, 313, 449f.

Proverbs, book of, 240 ff., 255, 266.

Psalms, 25, 98 ff., 191 f., 239 f.,
250 ff., 316, 336, 358 1,7 447 1
titles of the, 250 f., 447 f.; books
of the Psalter, 354 f.; Psalms of
Solomon, 282 f.

Psalter of the English Prayer-book,

the

99

Psalterium Romanum, Gallicanum,
Hebraicum, 98 ff.

Pseudepigrapha, 265, 281 f.

Pseudo-Aristeas, see ‘ Aristeas’ ;
Pseudo-Athanasius, 82, 85, 207,
282; Pseudo-Chrysostom, 205;
Pseudo-Clement, 411; Pseudo-
Gelasius, 211 f.

Ptolemies, list of the early, 5 f.

‘Ptolemy and Cleopatra,’ 25, 258

Παλαιστιναῖον, τό, 77

παραγραφαί, 361

παραινετικά, τά, 208

Παραλειπόμενα, 214

παρθένος (in Isa. vii. 14), 30

περικοπή, 358

TEVTATEVXOS, ἣ, 123, 204 ff.

ΠΙΠῚ (3335). 391

προσευχὴ Afaplov, 253, 260; προσ-
εὐχὴ Μαννασσή, 253 f.

I[udex IT.

προσήλυτος, ὁ (1395), 32

ppoupal, 258

προφητικόν, τό, 205; προφητικά, τά,
208

Πτολεμαϊκά, τά, 299

Q, 66, 75. 77, 144 f., 348

Quinta, the, 53 ff.,

Quotations from Lxx. by Jewish
Fellenists, 3690. 1.; .in N:T.;
381 ff.; in early Christian litera-
ture, 406 ff.

R, 141 f., 495

Rahlfs, A., 135 |
Recensions of the Lxx., 76 ff., 481 f.
Redpath, H. A., 135, 141, 147, 290,

495
Reuchlin, J., 436
Robinson, F., 105
Ryle. By est. 215,275, 283,
342, 374, 404
Roman edition of Lxx., 174 ff., 486
Ruffinus, 210, 223

5 (=8), 75, 77, 129 ff., 352) 490;
Sey 204,3. δ}, 53

Sabatier, P., 02

Samaritans in Egypt, 6, 437 ff,
441 f.; Samaritan Pentateuch,
436 ff.

Sanday, W., 218 ff., 360

scriptio defectiva, 321

Scrivener, F. H. A., 189

Semitic words in LxX., 19, 306 ff.;
Semitic idioms, 323 ff.

‘ Septima,’ the, 53 ff.

‘Septuagint,’ the name, g f.; early
history of the version, Ὁ (tke;
Origen labours upon it, 59 ἔξ;
recensions, 76 ff.; versions based
upon the Lxx., 87 ff.; MSS. of
LXX., 122 ff.; printed editions,
171 ff.; books contained in the
Greek O.T., 197 ff.; language
and style, 289 ff.; merits and
defects, 315 f.; use by pagan
writers, 22; by Hellenists, 29 f.,
369 ff.; in the N.T., 381 ff.; in the
Fathers, 406 ff.; its importance,
433 ff.; textual problems, 480 ff.

591

Sequence, Hebrew and _ Greek,
tables of, 231 ff.; discussion of,
234 ff.

‘Sexta,’ the, 53 ff.

Shashanq (Shishak), 3 f.

Sibyllines, the, 372, 380

Siloam inscription, the, 321

Sinaitic MS., the, 129 ff., 490

Sinker, R., 315

Sirach, 269 ff., 372; prologue to, 20,
24, 300, 319; the Hebrew, 270ff.;
disturbed order of the Greek,
271 f.; literature. 286

Sixtine edition, 174 ff.

‘Sixty books,’ the, 209 ff., 220, 281

Slavonic version, 120 f.

Smith, H. P., 340, 441; W.R., 30f.,
246, 440

Solomon, Psalms of, 282 f., 288;
Wisdom of, 267 ff., 285, 311 f.

Soter, 6, 19, 293

Stephen, R., 343

Stichometry, 344 ff.

Stoicism of 4 Macc., 280

Streane, A. W., 259

Susanna, 260 f.

Symmachus, 49 ff., 476, 483

Synagogue use of Lxx., 29 f.

Synoptic Gospels, quotations in,
386 ff., 391 ff.

Syntax of O. T. Greek, 305

Syriac versions, 111 ff.

Syro-Hexaplar, 77,

: 112. ἘΠ 386]
105.

σαρβὴθ σαβανὲ ἔλ, 277
σεγρί, 4τι

σειρά, 561

Σειράχ, 269

σελίς, 64

Σουσάννα, Σωσάννα, 260
στάσεις (in the Psalter), 359
στίχος, 344 ff.
συμβουλευτικόν, τό, 205
σύν =N® acc., 39, 308
σύνοψις ἐν ἐπιτόμῳ, 206
Σύρος, 0, 56, 116
σχῖνος, 261

ΠΡΌ, 449

592

I[hdex 77.

T, 142, 4953 θ΄, θε΄, 364

Talmud, Aquila quoted in the, 33

Targum, the Babylonian, 3
Taylor, C., 33, 41, 67, 271, 286

Tertullian, 9, 284, 351

Tetragrammaton, the, 39 f., 320,

327
Tetrapla, the, 65 ff., 73, 113 f.
Text-division, systems of, 342 ff.
Thackeray, H. St'J-5 135) 267
Thecla the martyr, 125
Theodorus (Egyptian Bishop), 79;
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 112, 115,
316, 432
‘Theodotion, 42 ff., 260 ff., 339 ff.,
395 ff., 403, 417, 421 ff, 458 f.,

483

Theodotus, 369 f.

Thomas of Harkel, 112 f.

Timothy and Aquila, dialogue of,
1 £.,:206

Tischendorf, A. F. C. von, 129 ff.,
135, 138 f., 140 ff., 187 f.

Titles of Psalms, 250f., 447 ff.; of
chapters, 354 ff.; of books, 198f.,
214 fff.

Tobit, book of, 273 f.

Transliteration, 46, 324 f.

trifaria varietas, 85 f.

Turin uncial Prophets, 145

ταχυγράφοι, 73

τέλος, 358

τέσσαρες, ol, 123
τετραβασίλειον, τό, 206

τετρασέλιδον, τό, 67

τόμοι (in Isaiah), 360

Θεγρί, 411
DYIBID ΠΡΊΝ, 434

V, 132, 495; U, 142 f

‘Variorum’ LXX., proposed, 496

Vatican MS. (B ), 126 ff., 486 ff.;
do. (N), 131 f.; do. (X), 143

Venice MS. (V= 23), 139

Verona Psalter, 141 f.

Versions of the O.T. (Greek) later
than 1ΧΧ., 29ff.; their importance,
457 ff., 476

Versions of the LXx., 87 ff., 493 f.

UErsus, 344

Vienna Genesis, 139

Vives, L. de, 15

Ulfilas, 117

Uncial MSS. of Lxx., 124 ff., 201 f.

Votau, C. W., 306

vuleata editio, 68

Vulgate, Latin, 103, 474 ff.

ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, 261

W, 143

Walton’s ΤΟΙ ΜΕΙ͂ΟΝ 182

Westcott, B. F. (Bp), 60, 131, 252,
278, 402

Wigan, W., 183

Wisdom of Solomon, 267 ff., 285,
21:12. 5.1“ 1:

Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach,
269 f., 286

Wulfila, 117

X, 143
Xenophon, Greek of, 294
Ximenes de Cisneros, F., 171 ff.

Y, 145
Yebna, 439
Young, P., 183

Z, 140 f., 145; ζ΄, 53
Zurich Psalter, 142

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. & C. F. CLAY AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

CLAPP

ὝΨΜΨΜΜΙΠ)

5002 00395 3184
duction to the 0 2

wete, Henry Barclay
An intro id Testament In

ποτ τς

-

ΠΥ eR Re

“Bas

i
ἷ

Meee tee gee

Patgetrnh sary

!

τῷ

Laan

ΟΝ

Δ,